RICO ACT, Jeff Grell, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, RICO, Attorney at Law

Hello and welcome to RICOACT.com!

I hope you find this website informative and useful. Moreover, regardless of whether you are a layperson or a lawyer, give me a call or drop me an email if you think you have a RICO claim. I would be happy to give you my reaction to your situation.

What follows is a more detailed description of the philosophies that guide the management of this website and my relationship with its visitors.

Am I pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant?

The purpose of this website is to provide unbiased direction in RICO jurisprudence. I consult with both plaintiffs and defendants in RICO cases; thus, I have no pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant bias.

RICO is a relatively new area of the law. Only in recent years has the case law sufficiently developed to provide some degree of predictability. It is my goal to increase the predictability of the law in this area and to develop analytical concepts and models that will enable courts and practitioners to more quickly comprehend the basic issues at play under the RICO Act.

Until the mid-1990's, practically every federal district court had a different outlook on the RICO Act, so one could find authority to support almost any position, regardless of how irrational that position may be. Much of this case law was never directly overruled but has become obsolete in light of the many decisions of the United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals that have been announced in the past 13 years. The confusing remnants of RICO's adolescence, however, are still cited by practitioners and relied upon by courts. As a result, there continues to be needless confusion in this area of the law. The hope is that this website will educate and guide lawyers and courts so that RICO jurisprudence can be uniform and less confusing.

In short, I believe there is hope to make sense out of RICO. I believe there are general rules that apply to all RICO claims. I believe that RICO is like any other area of the law that goes through a period of constant change and development but eventually begins to follow consistent principles. This website will recognize, express, define and discuss those consistent principles. RICO claims need not be hopelessly confusing. The RICO Act can be understood and consistently applied by reasonably intelligent people.

If I am not pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant, how do I decide what cases to take?

The primary consistent principle that has emerged in the case law since 1970 is that a RICO claim must be based on criminal activity. Not just any type of criminal activity, but racketeering activity. These are serious crimes, such as bribery, extortion, murder, criminal fraud, arson, money laundering, and loan sharking. Anyone who has seen an episode of Law & Order should understand the type of behavior that RICO is designed to address.

If a proposed RICO claim requires a lawyer to explain how the conduct is criminal, then that claim is not a true RICO claim - even if it arguably satisfies the requirements of the statute. That's a very non-legal way to voice the concept, but it is true. RICO actions that are not based on clearly criminal activity are going to face difficulty. RICO claims that present actions understood to be criminal by the ordinary person will be much more easily prosecuted.

RICO is designed to address criminal activity, not breach of contract, not defective product design, not common law fraud. The confusing and apparently conflicting case law arises from the circumstances when lawyers try to extend RICO too far. When RICO is being used in its intended environment, it remains a very accessible and effective weapon.

If you are a plaintiff injured by racketeering activity, I will support your claim. If you are a defendant who at most breached a contract or engaged in common law fraud but who is being sued under RICO, I will support your defense. I will not support any plaintiff attempting to abuse the RICO Act by stretching and contorting its principles in an effort to state a RICO claim under circumstances that do not present a RICO claim. I will not support any defendant who has engaged in racketeering activity and whose actions clearly fall within the statute's intended scope.

Given that I consult with both plaintiffs and defendants, I seldom appear as counsel on the pleadings of cases in which I am involved. If I failed to follow that practice, I would soon be overwhelmed by inconsistent positions and would disqualify myself from most cases. On suitable occasions, however, I will consider an appearance as counsel of record.

Who are my clients?

With regard to RICO claims, my clients are most commonly other lawyers. Most lawyers may bring one or two RICO claims in their lives. Given the complexity of the law, it is difficult and time consuming for general practitioners to learn about the RICO Act and to present colorable pleadings and arguments relating to such claims. I consult and co-counsel with other lawyers and relieve them of the burden associated with their RICO claims; thus, I can enable general practitioners to concentrate on their common law claims or other statutory claims that may not present such a learning curve. Clients do not have to pay me to learn RICO law - so I can reduce their litigation expenses. I know the law, and once I am presented with the facts, I can quickly and efficiently apply the RICO Act.

Many of my clients are corporations and small businesses. It is not uncommon for me to receive a call directly from corporate counsel seeking advice on whether their company has a RICO claim or wanting advice on how to defend against a RICO claim. Since most businesses also have attorneys on retainer, the question of local counsel (see next paragraph) usually is not a problem even if a CEO or business owner contacts me directly.

I also receive many telephone calls from individuals and will do my best to answer any question presented. As an unrepresented individual, however, I typically can offer educational instruction only and cannot comment on the particulars of your case. I am an active member of the Minnesota bar only. If you live outside of the State of Minnesota, I can offer substantive assistance only if you have counsel in your home state. Through the assistance of your local counsel, I can be admitted to your local bar for the purpose of appearing in a specific action. Without local counsel, I cannot appear in any capacity and can offer no substantive advice. Accordingly, when I am contacted by individuals, I almost always tell them that I can offer no assistance to them directly, but if they retain local counsel, I would be happy to further discuss their case with that local attorney.

Do I practice only RICO litigation?

I have been an attorney since 1990. During this time, I have represented many clients in all types of litigation, including clients involved with personal injury, breach of contract, common law fraud, employment, and discrimination claims.

Even with regard to RICO claims, seldom does a fact pattern give rise only to a RICO claim. If the facts support a RICO claim, the facts very likely will support other claims, so even in the context of my RICO practice, I must understand and be able to apply many other legal theories.

Also, there are many times when visitors contact me to evaluate a potential RICO claim but that evaluation ultimately is not favorable. Nonetheless, I am more than willing to consider other claims that the visitor may have, and if it makes sense, I will be more than happy to represent clients in non-RICO actions.

What is my philosophy on fees?

For the first 13 years of my practice, I worked at big law firms that were very, very good but also very, very expensive. When I worked at such firms, I couldn't even afford to hire myself. Given their size and financial obligations, these law firms had strict economic goals that every attorney had to meet. Attorneys were not free to adjust their billing rates. Attorneys were required to "bill" so many hours per day. While at these large firms, there were many occasions when I believed billing by the hour did not make sense but the economic model of the firm did not allow me to bill by any other method. Likewise, I felt constant tension between the firms' billable hour goals and the clients' interest in receiving the most economically efficient representation.

I founded RICOACT.COM LLC in an effort to create a law firm that truly made economic sense, both for the lawyer and the client. I wanted to create a law firm where I could work with my clients to figure out the best economic solution, given the circumstances with which we were confronted - rather than having billable hours dictate all of my economic relationships. I wanted to create a firm with low overhead expenses, so that clients would not be forced to pay indirectly for the attorneys' over-priced office space or redundant support staff. As an attorney, all I truly need is my brain and something to write with - the rest is just frosting. Unlike other business people, an attorney does not need expensive buildings, trucks and heavy machinery, or inventory. An attorney may want the Van Gogh hanging in the reception area, but why? Is that really necessary? An attorney may want a downtown office on the fortieth floor, but is it necessary? An attorney may want someone to do his copying, someone to answer the phone, someone to fix his computer but does he really need to pay three different people an annual salary to get what he truly needs in terms of support? The Van Gogh, the expensive office-space, the unlimited support staff available at the beckon call may be "wants" for every attorney, but they are not "needs." Like I said, the only thing an attorney truly needs is his brain and something to write with.

With regard to my practice, the question of fees is entirely negotiable. I will work on an hourly basis. I will work on a fixed-fee basis. I will work under blended agreements where I receive either a fixed-fee or where I bill under a lower hourly rate, and then have a contingency fee that will come into play if the litigation concludes successfully. I will also work on a straight contingency fee basis, but these cases are very, very rare and should not be expected. If the circumstances are right, however, a contingency fee arrangement may be the best for everyone. I am also willing to consider any other creative fee arrangement.

Regardless of my flexibility relating to fees, however, laypeople must understand that this is my profession. This is how I make my living. I cannot work for free, nor can I accept a contingency fee matter that does not make economic sense.

One thing is certain, however: no lawyer in the country is more willing to work with clients to arrive at economic solutions that make sense.

Why does my website reveal my losses?

If you actually read some of the opinions listed in my CV (i.e., Larson and Christianson), you will discover that those decisions were adverse to my clients' claims. Some people think it is odd that I refer to these "loser" cases on a website designed to promote my practice. Other attorneys may be ashamed of or conceal their losses, but a loss is a far greater teacher than any victory. I believe some philosopher once said: true knowledge can be acquired only through pain. Also, any lawyer who tells you they've never lost: 1) is lying, or 2) graduated from law school two months ago and has neither won nor lost any cases.

Litigation is like athletics. On any given Sunday, any given team can be beaten - no matter how good that team may generally play. Winning depends on many things, not just talent. Believe it or not, Micheal Jordan did not win all of his games in the NBA. Tiger Woods does not win every golf tournament. Regardless of the exceptional talent these athletes possess, their talent does not guarantee victory. The same is true with even the most talented attorneys. Winning depends on luck, the quality of your competition, the quality of the officiating, and your performance at a given point in time. All of these factors, and many others, must come together to produce a victory.

No attorney can guarantee a victory. Clients who enter litigation without considering the possibility of losing are not receiving good counsel. For every Super Bowl champion, there is a Super Bowl loser. In any competitive endeavor, winning and losing go hand-in-hand. Anyone involved in litigation must understand and appreciate this reality.

Are those my eyes on the logo?

Yes, those are my eyes. The goal of any logo is to be memorable. It appears as though people remember my logo. People always ask, however, "What does it mean? Are you trying to intimidate people?"

If I were to assign a meaning to my logo, it would flow from the principle that in art, there is no distinction between an artist and his art form. A work of art is a true reflection of the artist, not what is trendy or fashionable or marketable. The practice of law is my art form. I established this law firm so that I could do things the "right way," not the trendy way, the fashionable way or the marketable way. If you hire me to represent you, I will represent you. You will not be represented by my associate or partner or anyone else. T.S. Eliot didn't have other people write his poems. Monet didn't have other people paint his paintings. Yet today, you have "salesmen" lawyers and "workhorse" lawyers. Once the salesman convinces a client to retain a firm, the salesman leaves (or remains only on paper) and the real work of the litigation is done by the workhorse - who may or may not be known or trusted by the client.

There is nothing done by this law firm that I do not personally approve. I personally respond to all inquiries. If you write or call, I will respond - it may take a little time, but I will respond. Many people are surprised when they call RICOACT.COM's telephone number (952-835-4101) and I answer the telephone. Even when I practiced at large firms, I always answered my own telephone. Lawyers are lawyers - no more, no less. They are not delicate little flowers that must be protected from the wind. They are not the President of the United States whose time cannot be "wasted" on the common concerns of life. No lawyer is so important that he cannot take the time to talk to his clients. Only a misguided lawyer would not take the time to talk to people who seek out his expertise.

My light is always on. My door is always open. My eyes are always open.


	Disclaimer
About Mr. Grell Biography CV Client Relations	Hello and welcome to RICOACT.com! I hope you find this website informative and useful. Moreover, regardless of whether you are a layperson or a lawyer, give me a call or drop me an email if you think you have a RICO claim. I would be happy to give you my reaction to your situation. What follows is a more detailed description of the philosophies that guide the management of this website and my relationship with its visitors. Am I pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant? The purpose of this website is to provide unbiased direction in RICO jurisprudence. I consult with both plaintiffs and defendants in RICO cases; thus, I have no pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant bias. RICO is a relatively new area of the law. Only in recent years has the case law sufficiently developed to provide some degree of predictability. It is my goal to increase the predictability of the law in this area and to develop analytical concepts and models that will enable courts and practitioners to more quickly comprehend the basic issues at play under the RICO Act. Until the mid-1990's, practically every federal district court had a different outlook on the RICO Act, so one could find authority to support almost any position, regardless of how irrational that position may be. Much of this case law was never directly overruled but has become obsolete in light of the many decisions of the United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals that have been announced in the past 13 years. The confusing remnants of RICO's adolescence, however, are still cited by practitioners and relied upon by courts. As a result, there continues to be needless confusion in this area of the law. The hope is that this website will educate and guide lawyers and courts so that RICO jurisprudence can be uniform and less confusing. In short, I believe there is hope to make sense out of RICO. I believe there are general rules that apply to all RICO claims. I believe that RICO is like any other area of the law that goes through a period of constant change and development but eventually begins to follow consistent principles. This website will recognize, express, define and discuss those consistent principles. RICO claims need not be hopelessly confusing. The RICO Act can be understood and consistently applied by reasonably intelligent people. If I am not pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant, how do I decide what cases to take? The primary consistent principle that has emerged in the case law since 1970 is that a RICO claim must be based on criminal activity. Not just any type of criminal activity, but racketeering activity. These are serious crimes, such as bribery, extortion, murder, criminal fraud, arson, money laundering, and loan sharking. Anyone who has seen an episode of Law & Order should understand the type of behavior that RICO is designed to address. If a proposed RICO claim requires a lawyer to explain how the conduct is criminal, then that claim is not a true RICO claim - even if it arguably satisfies the requirements of the statute. That's a very non-legal way to voice the concept, but it is true. RICO actions that are not based on clearly criminal activity are going to face difficulty. RICO claims that present actions understood to be criminal by the ordinary person will be much more easily prosecuted. RICO is designed to address criminal activity, not breach of contract, not defective product design, not common law fraud. The confusing and apparently conflicting case law arises from the circumstances when lawyers try to extend RICO too far. When RICO is being used in its intended environment, it remains a very accessible and effective weapon. If you are a plaintiff injured by racketeering activity, I will support your claim. If you are a defendant who at most breached a contract or engaged in common law fraud but who is being sued under RICO, I will support your defense. I will not support any plaintiff attempting to abuse the RICO Act by stretching and contorting its principles in an effort to state a RICO claim under circumstances that do not present a RICO claim. I will not support any defendant who has engaged in racketeering activity and whose actions clearly fall within the statute's intended scope. Given that I consult with both plaintiffs and defendants, I seldom appear as counsel on the pleadings of cases in which I am involved. If I failed to follow that practice, I would soon be overwhelmed by inconsistent positions and would disqualify myself from most cases. On suitable occasions, however, I will consider an appearance as counsel of record. Who are my clients? With regard to RICO claims, my clients are most commonly other lawyers. Most lawyers may bring one or two RICO claims in their lives. Given the complexity of the law, it is difficult and time consuming for general practitioners to learn about the RICO Act and to present colorable pleadings and arguments relating to such claims. I consult and co-counsel with other lawyers and relieve them of the burden associated with their RICO claims; thus, I can enable general practitioners to concentrate on their common law claims or other statutory claims that may not present such a learning curve. Clients do not have to pay me to learn RICO law - so I can reduce their litigation expenses. I know the law, and once I am presented with the facts, I can quickly and efficiently apply the RICO Act. Many of my clients are corporations and small businesses. It is not uncommon for me to receive a call directly from corporate counsel seeking advice on whether their company has a RICO claim or wanting advice on how to defend against a RICO claim. Since most businesses also have attorneys on retainer, the question of local counsel (see next paragraph) usually is not a problem even if a CEO or business owner contacts me directly. I also receive many telephone calls from individuals and will do my best to answer any question presented. As an unrepresented individual, however, I typically can offer educational instruction only and cannot comment on the particulars of your case. I am an active member of the Minnesota bar only. If you live outside of the State of Minnesota, I can offer substantive assistance only if you have counsel in your home state. Through the assistance of your local counsel, I can be admitted to your local bar for the purpose of appearing in a specific action. Without local counsel, I cannot appear in any capacity and can offer no substantive advice. Accordingly, when I am contacted by individuals, I almost always tell them that I can offer no assistance to them directly, but if they retain local counsel, I would be happy to further discuss their case with that local attorney. Do I practice only RICO litigation? I have been an attorney since 1990. During this time, I have represented many clients in all types of litigation, including clients involved with personal injury, breach of contract, common law fraud, employment, and discrimination claims. Even with regard to RICO claims, seldom does a fact pattern give rise only to a RICO claim. If the facts support a RICO claim, the facts very likely will support other claims, so even in the context of my RICO practice, I must understand and be able to apply many other legal theories. Also, there are many times when visitors contact me to evaluate a potential RICO claim but that evaluation ultimately is not favorable. Nonetheless, I am more than willing to consider other claims that the visitor may have, and if it makes sense, I will be more than happy to represent clients in non-RICO actions. What is my philosophy on fees? For the first 13 years of my practice, I worked at big law firms that were very, very good but also very, very expensive. When I worked at such firms, I couldn't even afford to hire myself. Given their size and financial obligations, these law firms had strict economic goals that every attorney had to meet. Attorneys were not free to adjust their billing rates. Attorneys were required to "bill" so many hours per day. While at these large firms, there were many occasions when I believed billing by the hour did not make sense but the economic model of the firm did not allow me to bill by any other method. Likewise, I felt constant tension between the firms' billable hour goals and the clients' interest in receiving the most economically efficient representation. I founded RICOACT.COM LLC in an effort to create a law firm that truly made economic sense, both for the lawyer and the client. I wanted to create a law firm where I could work with my clients to figure out the best economic solution, given the circumstances with which we were confronted - rather than having billable hours dictate all of my economic relationships. I wanted to create a firm with low overhead expenses, so that clients would not be forced to pay indirectly for the attorneys' over-priced office space or redundant support staff. As an attorney, all I truly need is my brain and something to write with - the rest is just frosting. Unlike other business people, an attorney does not need expensive buildings, trucks and heavy machinery, or inventory. An attorney may want the Van Gogh hanging in the reception area, but why? Is that really necessary? An attorney may want a downtown office on the fortieth floor, but is it necessary? An attorney may want someone to do his copying, someone to answer the phone, someone to fix his computer but does he really need to pay three different people an annual salary to get what he truly needs in terms of support? The Van Gogh, the expensive office-space, the unlimited support staff available at the beckon call may be "wants" for every attorney, but they are not "needs." Like I said, the only thing an attorney truly needs is his brain and something to write with. With regard to my practice, the question of fees is entirely negotiable. I will work on an hourly basis. I will work on a fixed-fee basis. I will work under blended agreements where I receive either a fixed-fee or where I bill under a lower hourly rate, and then have a contingency fee that will come into play if the litigation concludes successfully. I will also work on a straight contingency fee basis, but these cases are very, very rare and should not be expected. If the circumstances are right, however, a contingency fee arrangement may be the best for everyone. I am also willing to consider any other creative fee arrangement. Regardless of my flexibility relating to fees, however, laypeople must understand that this is my profession. This is how I make my living. I cannot work for free, nor can I accept a contingency fee matter that does not make economic sense. One thing is certain, however: no lawyer in the country is more willing to work with clients to arrive at economic solutions that make sense. Why does my website reveal my losses? If you actually read some of the opinions listed in my CV (i.e., Larson and Christianson), you will discover that those decisions were adverse to my clients' claims. Some people think it is odd that I refer to these "loser" cases on a website designed to promote my practice. Other attorneys may be ashamed of or conceal their losses, but a loss is a far greater teacher than any victory. I believe some philosopher once said: true knowledge can be acquired only through pain. Also, any lawyer who tells you they've never lost: 1) is lying, or 2) graduated from law school two months ago and has neither won nor lost any cases. Litigation is like athletics. On any given Sunday, any given team can be beaten - no matter how good that team may generally play. Winning depends on many things, not just talent. Believe it or not, Micheal Jordan did not win all of his games in the NBA. Tiger Woods does not win every golf tournament. Regardless of the exceptional talent these athletes possess, their talent does not guarantee victory. The same is true with even the most talented attorneys. Winning depends on luck, the quality of your competition, the quality of the officiating, and your performance at a given point in time. All of these factors, and many others, must come together to produce a victory. No attorney can guarantee a victory. Clients who enter litigation without considering the possibility of losing are not receiving good counsel. For every Super Bowl champion, there is a Super Bowl loser. In any competitive endeavor, winning and losing go hand-in-hand. Anyone involved in litigation must understand and appreciate this reality. Are those my eyes on the logo? Yes, those are my eyes. The goal of any logo is to be memorable. It appears as though people remember my logo. People always ask, however, "What does it mean? Are you trying to intimidate people?" If I were to assign a meaning to my logo, it would flow from the principle that in art, there is no distinction between an artist and his art form. A work of art is a true reflection of the artist, not what is trendy or fashionable or marketable. The practice of law is my art form. I established this law firm so that I could do things the "right way," not the trendy way, the fashionable way or the marketable way. If you hire me to represent you, I will represent you. You will not be represented by my associate or partner or anyone else. T.S. Eliot didn't have other people write his poems. Monet didn't have other people paint his paintings. Yet today, you have "salesmen" lawyers and "workhorse" lawyers. Once the salesman convinces a client to retain a firm, the salesman leaves (or remains only on paper) and the real work of the litigation is done by the workhorse - who may or may not be known or trusted by the client. There is nothing done by this law firm that I do not personally approve. I personally respond to all inquiries. If you write or call, I will respond - it may take a little time, but I will respond. Many people are surprised when they call RICOACT.COM's telephone number (952-835-4101) and I answer the telephone. Even when I practiced at large firms, I always answered my own telephone. Lawyers are lawyers - no more, no less. They are not delicate little flowers that must be protected from the wind. They are not the President of the United States whose time cannot be "wasted" on the common concerns of life. No lawyer is so important that he cannot take the time to talk to his clients. Only a misguided lawyer would not take the time to talk to people who seek out his expertise. My light is always on. My door is always open. My eyes are always open.