Bob's practice covers a broad spectrum of complex business litigation on behalf of Fortune 500 companies as well as smaller companies and individuals.  A significant percentage of Bob’s practice is conducted in New Jersey.  He also continues to practice in New York, where he spent the first 10 years of his career as a litigation associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. 

Since joining Conrad O’Brien in 1990, Bob has represented IBM Corporation continually in cases in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and, more recently, in New York.  His cases for IBM have involved, among other areas, contract disputes with vendors and customers, employment claims by former employees, and environmental claims.  Bob successfully represented IBM in a case brought by a potential subcontractor under a “teaming agreement” entered into in connection with a contract between IBM and the Department of Defense.   Trianco, LLC v. IBM Corp., 466 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d in relevant part, 271 Fed. Appx. 198 (3d Cir. 2008).  Upon remand, the district granted IBM’s motion to dismiss the one claim sent back for further consideration, and that decision was upheld on Trianco’s further appeal.  583 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Pa. 2008), aff’d, 347 Fed. Appx. 808 (3d Cir. 2009).  Bob was similarly successful in obtaining dismissal of the principal claims asserted by the plaintiff in GlassHouse Systems, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 607 F. Supp. 2d 709 (E.D. Pa. 2009), later opinion granting IBM’s motion for summary judgment on one of two remaining claims, 750 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.D. Pa. 2010).  The one remaining claim in that case, for promissory estoppel, was the subject of a four-day bench trial in June 2011.  In July 2011, the Court issued its opinion in favor of IBM.   2011 WL 2937389 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2011).  A commentator who followed the case closely wrote that Bob “mounted a defense quite worthy of classroom presentation”, and that “[w]ell before the three-year battle ended, it became clear that [Bob] would crush his opponent”.  

Bob also represents the Progressive Group of Insurance Companies in numerous cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.  Most of those cases have involved class action claims raising significant issues under various “no fault” automobile insurance programs.  Bob took the lead on behalf of a group of insurer defendants in a New York case involving reimbursements for multiple MRIs conducted at a single session.  The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Pending the plaintiffs’ appeal to the Second Circuit, a favorable settlement was reached.  Brentwood Pain & Rehab. Serv., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co. 508 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).  In another successful defense, a class action complaint seeking to recover on behalf of a class of Pennsylvania massage therapists was dismissed on the basis that the plaintiffs were required to hold the equivalent of a physical therapist’s license in order to seek insurance benefits for the claims at issue.  That ruling was affirmed on appeal.  Keiper v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3236702 (Com. Pl. 2007), aff’d, 968 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).  In 2010, Bob took the lead on behalf of a group of insurer defendants in a putative class action pending in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia concerning insurance discounts for “antitheft” devices in automobiles.  When a similar class action case was commenced against Progressive and other insurers in Minnesota, Progressive retained Bob as its lead counsel in that litigation. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, which Bob argued on behalf of all defendants. The court granted the motion, dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Hara v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5035995 (D. Minn. April 12, 2011). The ruling in that case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit, where Bob argued the appeal in December 2011 on behalf of all defendants.

Bob and other members of the firm were retained by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in 2010 to represent it in a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by a former client, Airgas, Inc., seeking, inter alia, to enjoin Cravath from representing Air Products, Inc., in connection with a possible acquisition of Airgas by Air Products.  See 2010 WL 624955 (granting Cravath's motion to stay).  Cravath thereafter successfully defeated Airgas’s attempt to disqualify it from representing Air Products in the Delaware Chancery Court.