Transforming Single-Plaintiff Verdicts into Industry-Shifting Statutory Reforms.
This is the process I run when a case reveals that the law itself needs to change — kept general here by design.Active legislative work is confidential and matter-specific; nothing below identifies a bill, a state, or a client.
The five-step process below is the same regardless of subject matter. These are the areas where that process gets applied most often — kept general here by the same design as everything else on this page: no bill, state, or client identified.
Turning individual survivors' cases into the public and political pressure that extends or eliminates filing deadlines for entire categories of claims.
Advocacy work tied to the statutes and appropriations that govern how military families and survivors of attacks on U.S. service members access compensation and justice.
Legislative advocacy isn't virtual work. It happens in hallways, in committee rooms, at markup sessions, over coffee with a staffer twenty minutes before a hearing — not over a dial-in from somewhere else, hoping a phone call does the job.
I'm based in Washington, DC. That's where the national press corps covering statute-of-limitations reform actually lives, where the advocacy organizations working these issues full-time are headquartered, and where I built my own relationships first — as a reporter covering exactly this kind of story, long before I ever worked a case. Whether the fight is in a state legislature or in Congress, being in the room is not optional, and I already am.
Not every case that runs into a statute of limitations is a legislative matter — most aren't. This step is about recognizing when a case has surfaced a structural problem bigger than one client's facts: a deadline that's quietly barring an entire category of survivors from ever being heard.
Reform doesn't pass because one firm wants it to. It passes because survivor advocates, other attorneys handling similar matters, and legislators who've already shown interest in the issue are aligned and speaking with one voice instead of several competing ones.
Legislators change statutes when the human stakes are undeniable, not when the legal argument is merely correct. This means translating what a deadline actually costs a survivor into language a committee room understands — always with full survivor consent, and always protecting the specific individuals involved from becoming public exhibits in their own case.
A bill has its own version of a bellwether window — committee hearings, floor votes, session deadlines — and missing that window can mean waiting another full year. Public and media pressure gets timed to those moments specifically, not run on a generic press schedule.
A law passing isn't the finish line. Implementation gets watched, because a reform that isn't applied correctly in practice hasn't actually opened the door it was written to open.
That's a different conversation than a single-matter evidentiary audit. If a case you're working has surfaced a legal barrier bigger than its own facts, let's talk about whether it's a reform effort worth building.