“My clients know that I am committed to them and to finding the best possible legal solutions to resolve their issues.” – Joseph P. Garin
Joseph P. Garin is a partner in the firm of Lipson Neilson P.C. He maintains a national practice, focusing on defense of professional liability claims, insurance coverage disputes, directors and officers claims, and risk & litigation management.
Throughout his career, Mr. Garin has defended more than 500 lawyers and law firms in Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, and Illinois including the completion of jury trials, arbitrations and appeals.
His other experience includes a range of litigation matters, including professional liability disputes, insurance coverage, director and officer liability, commercial law, and employer/employee disputes. He regularly consults with insurers and businesses of all sizes on risk management and litigation management matters.
Mr. Garin earned a B.G.S. from the University of Michigan and received his J.D. cum laude from Michigan State University-Detroit College of Law, where he was a member of the Law Review.
He is a member of the State Bar of Nevada, State Bar of Michigan, the State Bar of Illinois, the State Bar of Colorado, and the State Bar of Utah. He is admitted before the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western District of Michigan, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, as well as in the Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is also an Alternate Judge for the Municipal Court in Las Vegas.
Mr. Garin is currently co-chair of the Professional Liability Committee for the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (“CLM”), an international organization with more than 25,000 members.
He is a Committee Member to the Southwest Chapter of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. He has served as the Chair of the State Bar of Nevada Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. He has served as a court-appointed special master and settlement facilitator.
Mr. Garin is an SCAO-trained Mediator. He consults regularly and has testified as an expert witness. He has been a featured speaker at continuing education conferences on a national and state level. He completed the Certified Litigation Management Professional Training through CLM at Columbia University, and he was awarded a CLMP Certificate in October 2015.
In 2017, he completed course work and obtained a Certificate in Reasonable Attorney Fees and Proper Legal Billing Practices form the National Association of Legal Fees Analysis (“NALFA”). He is listed as a senior fellow with NALFA.
Mr. Garin is rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale Hubbell in both Nevada and Michigan. He has been selected as a Mountain States Super Lawyer in Nevada every year since 2007.
Joseph Garin and Lisa Zastrow Win Motion to Dismiss Legal Malpractice Suit Against Global Law Firm in U.S. District Court
On March 3, 2021, a Nevada federal judge granted a motion to dismiss a China-based auto dealer’s legal malpractice suit against global law firm DLA Piper. Lipson Neilson’s Joseph Garin and Lisa Zastrow represented DLA Piper in this case.
Mr. Garin and Ms. Zastrow successfully argued that the case should be dismissed because their client is not Nevada-based, and because DLA Piper was hired by an audit committee and that the work never included the law firm directly representing China Auto Logistics, Inc. Therefore, the firm cannot be targeted with a “standard of care” malpractice claim stemming from an attorney-client relationship that never existed.
In a 12-page order dismissing the suit without prejudice, U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro ruled that even though DLA Piper has previously conducted business in Nevada, the plaintiff’s venue argument does not establish the law firm’s physical presence in the state.
The case is China Auto Logistics Inc. vs. DLA Piper LLP, case number 2:20-cv-00646, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Nevada Court of Appeals Rules 3-0 to Affirm Award of Attorney Fees
August 19, 2020 – In a case handled by David A. Clark and Joseph P. Garin, a panel of three judges for the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada ruled 3-0 to affirm the award of Lipson Neilson’s fees and costs in a legal malpractice case. PLISE VS. SCHWARTZER, 20-30589
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that it was unreasonable for the Appellant to insist on a stay rather than a dismissal without prejudice, since his claim was premature, and therefore, fees and costs were justified under NRS 18.010(2)(b). Click here to view the ruling.
Lipson Neilson team of Joe Garin, Megan Hummel, Amber Williams Win Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Attorney’s Fees in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
July 22, 2019 – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the Federal District Court order granting both a motion to dismiss and a motion for attorney’s fees filed by attorneys Joe Garin, Megan Hummel and Amber Williams in a lawsuit brought by an insurance company against an attorney in violation of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The dispute arose from Plaintiff’s decision to deny coverage to an insured who had been named as a defendant in a catastrophic personal injury lawsuit. After a state court judge entered an $18 million default judgment against the insured, Plaintiff was named in a bad faith action pursuant to a valid assignment of rights from its insured to the injured party. To avoid liability, Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against the attorneys involved in the personal injury action, asserting that they violated Nevada’s RICO statutes and engaged in a conspiracy by negotiating a settlement and covenant not to execute after Plaintiff refused to provide a defense.
The Federal District Court granted dismissal with prejudice in favor of the attorneys pursuant to NRS 41.660, a statute which prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “SLAPP suits.” The District court also granted a subsequent motion for attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court orders, finding that:
- The attorneys established the communications at issue were made in good faith and without knowledge of falsehood.
- That Plaintiff was not entitled to conduct discovery as “[t]he problem with Plaintiff’s complaint [was] not the sufficiency of the allegations, but the very nature of the allegations – that they target protected communications in an effort to suppress those communications.”
- That the district court correctly awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to the penalty provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.