Philosophy
At the Law Offices of Scot Bernstein, we represent individuals
and groups of people who have been financially abused or
otherwise “ripped off” by careless or dishonest companies.
This is divided into two primary areas of practice:
► class actions representing
employees and consumers
► securities arbitration /
investment disputes
Class actions for overtime pay, wage-and-hour
violations, and other consumer rip-offs. We
represent employees who have not been paid the full wages,
including overtime pay and vacation pay, that their employers
owe them. We also represent consumers who have paid their
hard-earned money for products that are defective or do not
deliver as promised. Workers and consumers have a right to
what the law says they are owed. Unfortunately, however,
the amount owed to any one person, while substantial, might not
be large enough to support the legal expense of pursuing an
individual claim. In those situations, a class action on
behalf of everyone in the same situation may provide the only
real hope for receiving compensation for the harm done – and the
only way to prevent the corporate wrongdoer from keeping the
fruits of its misconduct.
[click here for more about this area of practice]
Securities arbitrations and investment disputes.
We represent investors and savers who have been taken advantage
of by stockbrokers, financial planners, investment advisers,
stock brokerage firms and the securities industry generally.
Often, the cases are brought against the very largest firms on
Wall Street.
Usually, brokerage firms’ agreements with their customers
require all disputes to be arbitrated. Thus, we handle
arbitrations at the NASD, the NYSE, AAA (American Arbitration
Association), JAMS and PCX (the Pacific Exchange, formerly known
as the Pacific Stock Exchange).
[click here for more about this area of practice]
These areas of practice are not as different as they might
appear at first glance. Both involve representing the
underdog against a company that has not played by the rules.
Both involve the application of laws designed to prevent
dishonesty in the marketplace for goods and services, to correct
the gross inequality of bargaining power between lone
individuals and the giant companies with which they must deal,
and to rein in companies that otherwise might profit from
conduct that is dishonest or out-and-out illegal.
Some businesses are shockingly dishonest. The stock
analyst scandals on Wall Street are a prime example. Large
brokerage firms’ stock analysts deliberately lied to investors –
the firms' own customers -- to
prop up the stock prices of the firms’ investment banking
clients. The $1.4 billion dollars that
those firms paid to settle the enforcement action brought
against them by the New York attorney general is inconsequential
to them, a slap on the wrist. It’s a tiny fraction of the
losses suffered by huge numbers of hard-working Americans – good
people who lost their life savings because they trusted big-name
firms that invited trust but did not deserve it.
If those investors want compensation for the harm they
have suffered, they will have to bring their own claims.
Want another example of deliberate theft, this one directed at
employees? Here it is, straight out of the headlines:
“time shaving.” Time-shaving is the deliberate altering of
employees’ time records to reduce the amount the employees are
paid. It is theft, pure and simple. And it has become
easier to accomplish than it used to be because many businesses
keep time records in electronic rather than paper form.
Altering them may take only a few keystrokes.
Time shaving is stealing. Employers that
rob their employees this way deserve to be criminally
prosecuted, just as an employee who stole a comparable sum from
his or her employer would be. But whether or not that
happens, one thing is clear: employees have a
legal right to be paid for all of the hours they have worked.
In many cases, unfortunately, they get that pay only by filing
lawsuits.
This is not to say that all businesses are dishonest. Many
play by the rules. Sometimes, though, they still make
mistakes. They might sell a defective product that needs
expensive repairs or doesn’t perform as promised. Or they
may make an honest mistake in calculating an employee’s pay.
But that mistake, even if the business made it innocently, costs
somebody money. The right party to pay for the mistake is
the business that made it. Businesses that make mistakes
shouldn’t expect their customers and employees to pay for them.
Unfortunately, though, they often have that expectation.
When that happens, people have two choices: they can take
it lying down; or they can file a claim to recover what the law
says they are owed – just as the business would do to them if
they owed the business money.
We constantly hear about the supposed “litigation explosion,”
“lawsuit abuse,” and our purportedly “litigious society.”
These are myths. Lawsuit statistics bear
that out. But think about this: when an employer
that has engaged in time-shaving gets caught and still refuses
to pay its employees the full amount they have earned, and the
employees have to file a class action to collect their pay for
the hours they have worked, who is being litigious? Who
is the real cause of that lawsuit? The employees
who simply want their pay? Or the employer who
broke the law and refuses to give back the ill-gotten gain?
Litigation of this kind is not just essential for the protection
of investors, consumers and employees. It is essential as
well to level the playing field so that the businesses that do
play by the rules are not disadvantaged as a result. If
some businesses comply with the law and others do not, the
lawbreakers have an unfair competitive advantage over honest
companies.
Often, that lawbreaking will persist until a private lawsuit
puts an end to it. Usually, that lawsuit is filed by the
consumer, investor or employee who is directly affected.
But sometimes a competing business will sue to stop the
lawbreaking and to preserve fair, law-abiding competition in the
marketplace. Either way, a self-governing people have a
right to have their laws enforced rather than ignored –
and private litigation often is the only enforcement those laws
ever receive.