Frederick (“Fred”) Braunstein focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and appellate strategy and advocacy. He has several years’ experience representing clients, ranging from individuals to large corporations, in a wide array of matters and has prosecuted and defended numerous actions in trial and appellate courts throughout the country. Fred also provides analysis of current appellate issues for the Robins Kaplan Appellate Advocacy and Guidance Blog.
Fred is deeply devoted to pro bono work. He has a particular interest in issues of social and economic justice and has advocated on behalf of transgender clients in several civil rights cases.
Immediately prior to joining Robins Kaplan, Fred served for two years as a law clerk to the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. His previous experience also includes work as a litigation associate in the New York office of a large international law firm.
Alta Capital Partners v. Parsons Capital LLC: Primary brief author and argued this appeal in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, on behalf of the defendant investors. Successfully attained a unanimous reversal of the trial court’s order denying the investors’ motion to dismiss. The Court held that in the absence of unequivocal language in an “exclusive” engagement agreement granting an investment advisor a right to receive a success fee upon the closing of a transaction that the investors found, independently negotiated, and closed on their own, no success fee is due as a matter of law.
IRX Therapeutics v. Landry: Drafted the brief in this appeal in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, which resulted in an affirmance of the lower court’s order dismissing the action in favor of a related case pending in federal court in Texas.
In re: CITCO Bank Nederland: Part of the team petitioning the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a writ of mandamus to review a lower court’s discovery order concerning production of materials prepared by foreign in-house counsel. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
Represented an entertainment company in an investigation pursuant to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act concerning its business practices in Asia. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
New Delhi Television v. The Nielsen Company: Part of the appellate team defending The Nielsen Company in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in a dispute over the company’s television ratings in India. The Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint against Nielsen on forum non conveniens grounds. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
Sungate Securities v. Citigroup: Part of the appellate team that successfully attained an unanimous affirmance from the Court of Appeal of Florida of the lower court’s summary judgment order in this investor fraud action. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
Hicklin v. Precythe: Represented an incarcerated transgender woman who was denied medically-necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a permanent injunction requiring the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) to provide the doctor-recommended treatment. The order also bars the MDOC from enforcing Missouri’s “freeze-frame” policy – a blanket ban on providing hormone treatment to any transgender person who was not receiving such treatment prior to incarceration. This ruling is believed to be the first to find that freeze-frame policies are unconstitutional.
Rumble v. Fairview Health Services: Part of the team that represented a transgender patient who alleged discrimination in accessing healthcare services in violation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The case was resolved via settlement.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.