[Frohsin & Barger] has served as lead counsel in numerous states and has received awards of nearly $40,000,000 on behalf of its clients and the taxpayers during its less than four-year history.
Birmingham, AL (PRWEB) August 28, 2012
In Manning v. Braden Furniture Co. Inc., CV-10-2120, on Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, the Alabama Supreme Court recently upheld a jury verdict in favor of a Frohsin & Barger client and an award of $1,031,856, including approximately $731,856 in compensatory damages and interest and $300,000 in punative damages in a fraud trial in Jefferson County, Alabama.
The firm represented one of Jefferson County Alabama’s oldest family-owned merchant businesses, and trial testimony and court documents revealed that a trusted employee embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars by forging checks from the company accounts and concealed the fraud through the creation of false invoices. The trial testimony further demonstrated that the forged checks were presented to bank employees, who admitted under oath in court documents to accepting the forged checks without a named payee or endorsement against bank policy.
Founded in 2008 by former federal prosecutors and attorneys from a large regional civil defense firm, Frohsin & Barger is one of a relatively small number of firms in the country who concentrate almost exclusively in government investigations and fraud. The firm has served as lead counsel in numerous states and has received awards totaling nearly $40,000,000 on behalf of its clients and the taxpayers during its less than four-year history.
Henry Frohsin is a former First Assistant United States Attorney with over 40 years of trial experience, perhaps best known for vigorously prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan during the first decade of the Civil Rights Act. Jim Barger, an adjunct professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, is a noted scholar on the federal False Claims Act, a Civil War Era statute that authorizes private citizens to recover taxpayer dollars lost to fraudulent government spending.
No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.