Staff Assistant


Job Description & Application Information

Bancroft PLLC seeks a motivated individual to join the firm full-time and serve as Staff Assistant.

Responsibilities may include:

- Answering and directing phone calls
– Reception duties (preparation of conference rooms, greeting of guests)
– Scheduling for one of the firm’s partners
– Booking and organizing travel arrangements for attorneys
– Managing office supplies and functionality of workroom
– Troubleshooting & set-up for all staff IT issues (phone, computer, cellular, etc.)
– Assisting with execution of IT transitions (e-mail & phone migration, software changes, etc.)
– Time and expense entry for monthly invoices
– Organizing firm lunches and happy hours

Qualifications:

- Detail oriented, ability to multitask and perform well under pressure
– Strong ability to prioritize
– Strong computer software skills, including proficiency in Microsoft Office Suite
– Ability to work independently and as part of a team
– Willing to take personal initiative when required
– Handle confidential information requiring discretion and diplomacy on a daily basis

The position requires a self-starter with outstanding organizational skills, flexibility, and willingness to work in a tight-knit team environment.  Candidates are expected to demonstrate strong academic credentials, ability to adapt in a demanding environment, and eagerness to learn new things. Candidates must be able to work five days a week.  Salary determined based on experience. We are looking to fill this position as soon as possible.

Please contact Rachel Hoffmann at 202.234.0090 with any questions about the Staff Assistant position.  Interested persons should send a resume, cover letter, and unofficial transcript to rhoffmann@bancroftpllc.com.

Bancroft Named 2014 “Supreme Court and Appellate Team of the Year” by Legal 500

After “another stunning year,” The Legal 500 recognized Bancroft as the 2014 “Supreme Court and Appellate Team of the Year.”  Highlighting the firm’s victories in Bond v. United States, Northwest v. Ginsberg, and McCutcheon v. FEC, the award announcement declared that Bancroft “continues to be a natural choice to conduct difficult and high-profile matters before the highest court in the land.”

2014 Winners Brochure

Bancroft Files Amicus Brief in Google v. Hood

On February 2, 2015, Bancroft attorneys Paul Clement, Viet Dinh, and Jeffrey Harris, along with co-counsel Jonathan Massey of Massey & Gail, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Stop Child Predators, the Digital Citizens Alliance, the Taylor Hooton Foundation, and Ryan United in Google v. Hood, No. 14-cv-981 (S.D. Miss.).  In this case, Google seeks a federal court order prohibiting the Mississippi Attorney General from investigating whether Google’s services are being used for unlawful purposes.  Bancroft represents a coalition of public interest groups that seek to prevent the exploitation of children and the distribution of dangerous drugs online.  The amicus brief argues that the Attorney General’s investigation should be allowed to proceed, and that Google has adequate remedies to challenge the investigation in state court.

Amicus Brief

Bancroft Files Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing on Behalf of Bobby Chen

On February 3, 2015, Bancroft attorneys Paul Clement, Erin Murphy, and Raymond Tolentino filed a petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of petitioner Bobby Chen in Chen v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, et al., No. 13-10400.  In November 2014, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Chen’s pro se petition for certiorari to resolve an open and acknowledged circuit split regarding the proper interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).   Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances, Mr. Chen remained unaware that the Supreme Court granted his petition until late January 2015, after the Supreme Court dismissed certiorari due to Mr. Chen’s inadvertent failure to file his opening brief.  After learning of the dismissal, Mr. Chen reached out to Bancroft to assist him in reviving his case before the Supreme Court.

Brent Kendall, Missing Supreme Court Litigant Resurfaces, Aims to Revive Case, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 4, 2015)

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc.

On January 26, 2015, Bancroft attorneys Paul D. Clement and George W. Hicks, Jr., secured a victory in the Supreme Court of the United States for Bancroft client Lighting Ballast Control LLC in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., No. 13-1536, when the Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by Bancroft, vacated the judgment of the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holding against Lighting Ballast, and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.  The en banc Federal Circuit had ruled against Lighting Ballast after reaffirming its so-called “Cybor rule,” under which factual findings underlying patent claim construction are reviewed de novo.  The petition for certiorari had presented two questions:  first, whether factual findings underlying a district court’s construction of patent claims must be reviewed for clear error, rather than de novo; and second, whether there is an exception for “purely legal” issues to the general rule that an issue raised only in a failed summary judgment motion and not raised in a motion for judgment as a matter of law is forfeited on appeal.  Reflecting its disagreement with the Cybor rule and its application to Lighting Ballast, the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

John Council, Big Texas Patent Case Is Back On, Texas Lawyer (Jan. 26, 2015)

Above the Law names Bancroft the Top Litigation Firm by Law School Pedigree

On January 16, 2015, Above the Law recognized Bancroft as the “Top Litigation Firm by Law School Pedigree.”  Bancroft stood atop the list of 48 litigation boutiques and larger firms that classify a majority of their attorneys as litigators.  According to Above the Law, which averaged the U.S. News rankings of each lawyer’s law school, Bancroft attorneys attended schools with a median rank of 2; 75% graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford.

Above the Law, Top Litigation Firms by Law School Pedigree (Jan. 16, 2015)

In Rare Step, Government Moves to Vacate Criminal Convictions of Two Bancroft Clients

On December 15th, 2014, Bancroft attorneys Paul Clement, Erin Murphy and Candice Wong secured a victory for two of their clients in a highly unusual manner:  by convincing the government to abandon their prosecutions.  Dr. Anindya Kumar Sen and his wife, Patricia Posey Sen, were convicted of 29 counts of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce for unwittingly having received prescription drugs that were misbranded by the distributor that sent them.  After Bancroft argued in its opening appellate brief that neither the statute nor the Constitution permits imposition of strict criminal liability for the mere receipt of misbranded drugs, the government took the remarkable step of moving to vacate the Sens’ convictions and dismiss the indictment with prejudice.  As the Wall Street Journal reported, this exceeding rare development is likely to have broad ramifications on future prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. 331(a).

Joe Palazzolo, Justice Department Takes Rare Step of Dropping Misbranding Case, The Wall Street Journal (December 16, 2014)

Joint Opening Brief

Bancroft Achieves Unanimous Victory in Integrity Staffing v. Busk

On December 9, 2014, Bancroft secured a unanimous victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, No. 13-433.  The question presented was whether post-shift security screenings are compensable activities under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Portal-to-Portal Act.  The Supreme Court reversed the decision below and held that security screenings are not compensable because they are not an “intrinsic element” of employees’ principal job duties.  This decision will likely result in the dismissal of dozens of class-action suits seeking damages under the FLSA for time spent in security screenings.  Paul D. Clement argued the case for Integrity Staffing and Jeffrey Harris and Barbara Grieco assisted with the briefing.

Supreme Court Opinion

Bancroft Attorneys Steve Potenza and Chris Bartolomucci Help Long Island High School Student Secure Approval of Christian Club

On November 20, 2014, Bancroft attorneys Steve Potenza and Chris Bartolomucci and attorneys from the Liberty Institute helped their client, a sophomore at Wantagh High School in Wantagh, N.Y., secure approval from the Board of Education of the Wantagh Union Free School District for a proposed Christian faith-based club.  After a Wantagh High School official initially asserted that Christian student groups are “illegal” and refused to recognize the proposed Dare to Believe Christian club, Bancroft sent the school district a demand letter challenging the wrongful rejection.  In the letter, Bancroft explained that the Equal Access Act of 1984 provides that once a secondary school such as Wantagh High School allows students to form noncurriculum related clubs that meet on campus, the school must give equal access to, and must not discriminate against, students who wish to form faith-based clubs.  Just days after receiving the letter, the school board approved the club.

Bancroft Demand Letter

Liberty Institute, Dare to Believe Webpage (Nov. 24, 2014)

Fox News Insider, UPDATE: School District Will Allow Student’s Christian Club (Nov. 25, 2014)

Andrew Hackmack, Wantagh OKs Christian club, six others, LI Herald (Nov. 24, 2014)

Bart Jones, Wantagh school district approves sophomore Liz Loverde’s Christian faith-based club, Newsday (Nov. 24, 2014)

Bancroft Partner Erin Murphy Argues Second Amendment Case

On November 17, 2014, Bancroft partner Erin Murphy presented argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, No. 14-15408.  The case involves a Second Amendment challenge to a Sunnyvale ordinance that flatly prohibits possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Howard Mintz, Sunnyvale Gun Law Up in the Air in Federal Appeals Court, San Jose Mercury News (November 17, 2014)

Maria Dinzeo, 9th Circuit Hears Arguments on Ammo Law, Courthouse News Service (November 17, 2014)