Wyatt & Blake, LLP concentrates in the litigation of civil and criminal cases.

Civil Practice

Our civil practice focuses on business litigation, securities arbitrations/trials, class actions and personal injury representation. We always prepare our cases as if each one is going to trial. If the case can be settled, it is settled by us, with our client's consent, from a position of strength due to thorough trial preparation.1

Complex Civil Litigation - Wyatt & Blake, LLP has represented numerous individuals, officers and companies in complex civil litigation matters. These range from a CEO involved in litigation over the shutdown of a plant to large accounting firms, insurance companies and automobile dealerships involved in various types of litigation matters.

Securities Cases - Wyatt & Blake, LLP has represented numerous plaintiffs and defendants in criminal investigations, SEC civil investigations, civil securities cases, arbitration matters and injunctive hearings. Our clients have ranged from investors to brokers to large investment firms. Arbitration matters have ranged from representing plaintiffs whose accounts were mismanaged to brokers who moved from one firm to another, thereby implicating non-competition agreements.

Qui Tam Actions/False Claims Act and Civil/Criminal Forfeitures - Wyatt & Blake, LLP has represented numerous individuals in qui tam actions and False Claims Act cases.2 We have also represented numerous individuals and corporate entities in forfeiture matters and have lectured on this subject.

Criminal Practice

Our criminal practice ranges from complex federal white-collar investigations to state court matters. We have handled virtually every type of criminal case that can be brought by state or federal authorities. Each case is different, and requires a strategy that is best suited to its particular facts and dynamics.

Our experience allows us to exercise sound judgment in recommending a particular strategy to a client, and thorough preparation ensures the choice is the right one. In criminal cases, the best strategy may be an aggressive one3, or one involving full cooperation.4 Cases not yet charged may call for a pre-indictment interview of a client by prosecuting authorities with the purpose of preventing charges from being brought5, while others may involve presentation(s) to prosecuting authorities of the relevant facts and weaknesses of the prosecution's case without such an interview.6

Disciplinary Boards

Wyatt & Blake, LLP has represented numerous attorneys before the North Carolina State Bar, and has acted as lead or co-counsel in Board proceedings involving doctors, dentists, contractors and other professionals.

Other Information

In addition to the above matters, Wyatt & Blake, LLP has represented numerous lawyers, doctors and professional athletes in connection with confidential (and non-confidential) civil or criminal matters. We have also prided ourselves on representing those who have no professional or public profile at all, but who simply are in need of help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Nicholson v. Hoffman La Roche (represented class action plaintiffs in price-fixing settlement of $14,000,000 ($168,000,000 nationwide), largest indirect purchaser settlement in the nation)

2 A recent qui tam case involved a recovery of $1,470,000.00 (United States ex rel. Cantrell v. Berman).

3 United States v. Paul Gee (jail sergeant charged criminally with using excessive force on an inmate; judge directed a verdict of not guilty after three days of trial; the defense developed so much impeachment material of the government's chief witness, much of which it had to reveal shortly before trial, that the government refused to call this witness, leading to the judge's ruling.)

United States v. James Bouler (client charged with drug conspiracy and money laundering offenses; defense called basketball star Michael Jordan as a defense witness, who testified that client's wealth came from stakes-golf matches and not drug dealing; client found not guilty of drug conspiracy charge (but was convicted of a lesser charge) even though the government produced 16 witnesses who said they had personally engaged in drug transactions with the client.)

Reeves v. Udolf (District Attorney in Georgia accompanied law enforcement officers during an overbroad search of a home and business; DA then locked up the groundskeeper for 4 days on charges without any foundation and caused him to not be brought out of jail for a bond hearing during this time; groundskeeper and owner were charged with criminal RICO offenses; defense sued DA in his personal capacity under §1983 for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, while defending criminal cases at the same time; motions to suppress were granted in the criminal cases, and were affirmed, leading to dismissal of criminal charges (State v. Kelleher, 185 Ga. App. 774, 365 S.E.2d 889 (1988)); civil case brought by groundskeeper was tried, and DA was held civilly liable for his actions (Reeves v. Udolf, No. 88-8232 (11th Cir. 1988)); this verdict was the first ever against a DA in Georgia; civil case brought by owner was settled favorably thereafter) (see B. Cook and J. Wyatt, "Filing a Civil Rights Action as Part of an Aggressive Defense," The Champion, Vol. XVI, No. 6 at 14-18 (July 1992)).

4 Pre-Indictment Investigation Involving Large Corporation (representation of several key executives in this investigation concerning accounting practices; numerous other lawyers involved; prosecutor was ultimately convinced not to bring any criminal charges.)

United States v. Unnamed Professional Athlete (professional football player was charged with felony drug offenses, and hired Wyatt & Blake, LLP after indictment; after extensive investigation by the defense, the client agreed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, in light of his minor role in the alleged offense; thereafter, the felony charges were dismissed.)

5 United States v. Chief Financial Officer (client was subject of complex federal fraud investigation; after thorough preparation, client was interviewed by prosecutor, who then decided not to bring charges.)

6 United States v. Psychologist (after three years of pre-indictment proceedings, the government was convinced to drop all civil and criminal claims against a psychologist for billing fraud, even though a search warrant had been executed, the client's office records had seen seized, and numerous investigative tasks were undertaken.)

United States v. Car Dealer (government executed a sting operation at a car dealership, enticing the owner to accept a large amount of cash for a car; defense raised entrapment defense, and proved that owner made a good faith effort to comply with the cash reporting and money laundering laws before selling the car; owner also had no prior history of such conduct; prosecutor offered misdemeanor resolution, which owner declined; owner was never charged.)

United States v. Broker (broker was investigated on tax evasion charges based on sales of Charlotte Hornets seat rights; prosecutor was convinced not to press charges due to vagueness of law in area.)

United States v. Businessman (insider trading allegation; defense established there was no evidence of insider trading other than timing of trade itself; prosecutor declined to charge.)