Clinton Marrs
When it comes to effectively representing clients in business disputes, there is no substitute for experience. Clinton has three decades of experience as an accomplished business litigator and arbitrator. After graduating from Harvard College with a degree in biology, Clinton decided law school promised to be more exciting. He joined the U.S. Department of Justice through its Honors Program right out of University of New Mexico law school and spent the next four years in Washington, D.C. litigating federal tax cases in courts around the country.
Clinton returned home to New Mexico in 1990 and has been representing clients in business and financial industry litigation and arbitration, trust and other fiduciary litigation, and federal and state tax judicial and administrative controversies ever since. He defends business associations, individuals, and Indian tribal governments and entities in income, employment, excise, and gross receipts tax disputes in federal courts, including the United State Tax Court, and in state court. Clinton prosecutes claims for customers who have been harmed by their financial advisor’s wrongful securities brokerage and investment advisory practices.
Additionally, he counsels securities brokers and investment advisors who decide to “go out on their own”, and defends them in courts and arbitrational tribunals around the country against their former employers’ non-competition, non-solicitation, employee defection and recruitment claims. With 30 years of practical experience “in the trenches,” Clinton knows the best representation of clients in business disputes requires aggressive, sensible, and cost-effective strategies and tactics geared towards the client’s specific business interests and needs.
Our approach to advocating for our clients is fairly simple. We treat the client as a partner in whatever the legal challenge happens to be. To us, that means consulting with the client on all of the important strategic decisions that need to be made in a case, and also a lot of the smaller tactical decisions. It is hard to communicate too much with our clients because for every dispute that ends up in some form of a legal process, be it courthouse litigation or less formal processes like arbitration, it is probably one of the most important and sometimes most stressful things a client has experienced. And therefore, two-way communication is central to how we operate. We offer as much legal information and reasoned advice as we can, and we expect input and factual information back from the clients. Over decades of successfully advocating for clients, we have found that this formula works very well.
