Click here for a printer-friendly firm brochure.
Tim Polishan lives in Dunmore, Pennsylvania with his wife and four children.
Tim is AV Preeminent® Rated by Martindale-Hubbell in commercial litigation, litigation, criminal law and real estate. The AV Preeminent® Rating is Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating in legal ability and ethical standards reflecting confidential opinions of judges and members of the bar. For testimonials and reviews, see our Testimonials and Reviews Page.
Practice focuses include business litigation, complex commercial litigation, white collar criminal law, class action, fraud, business law, employment litigation, commercial law, federal civil litigation and federal criminal law.
Matters handled have involved bank fraud, common law fraud, complex defamation, computer fraud, contracts, corruption, environmental disputes, financial crimes, intellectual property, IRS representation, IRS litigation, Lanham Act, multistate proceedings, RICO, securities fraud, theft of trade secrets, unfair and deceptive trade practices, veil-piercing, wire fraud and zoning. Tim and his firm have discreetly represented business owners, corporate officers, lawyers, physicians and public figures and officials.
Since 1995 Tim has litigated a wide range of complex civil and criminal matters, in corporate and individual representations, for plaintiffs and defendants, in trials and hearings, appeals, arbitrations, administrative proceedings, grand jury proceedings, mediations and settlement negotiations. He has tried cases to verdict including federal, state, civil, criminal, jury and non-jury trials.
Tim is an Associate Member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), a Senior Hearing Committee Member for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and a Member of the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA). He belongs to the Gaming Law and Federal Practice Committees of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) and maintains memberships in the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) and the Lackawanna County Bar Association (LBA).
Tort Litigation: (2018) Lackawanna County – Pennsylvania (Won jury verdict for plaintiffs – surface water negligence claim).
Commercial Litigation: (2017) 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27204 – S.D.N.Y. (Won summary judgment for corporate defendants).
Class Action: (2016) 314 F.R.D. 541 – M.D. Pa. (Defeated motion to intervene by drafting opposition brief – 3:13-cv-2939 – Doc. 111).
Zoning Litigation: (2015) 123 A.3d 379 – Pa. Commw. Ct. (Defeated intervenor’s appeal).
Computer Fraud Litigation: (2015) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) injunction – 3:15-cv-00428 – M.D. Pa. (Filed preliminary injunction motion that resulted in successful resolution by stipulation and order).
IRS Litigation: (2015) 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27529 – 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1033 | 2015 WL 1003861 – 3:13-cv-338 – M.D. Pa. (Defeated IRS summary judgment motion in foreclosure action against entireties property).
Complex Defamation Litigation: (2014) 89 A.3d 251 – Pa. Super.
White Collar Defense: (2014)(Achieved greatly reduced sentence in complex proceedings)(Lead defense counsel in complicated multi-million dollar international VOIP wire fraud case) 3:11-cr-00280 – D.N.J.
Complex Commercial Litigation, Multistate Litigation, IP Litigation: (2013)(Filed motion to stay M.D. Pa. case pending resolution of “Second-Filed” issue in W.D.N.C. case that led to successful stipulation and order) 3:13-cv-01361 – M.D. Pa.
White Collar, Securities Fraud: (2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1170, 2011 WL 43457 – M.D. Pa. (Won petition for habeas corpus writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because, in BOP replies to requests for administrative relief, BOP failed to separately consider full residential reentry center placement as an incentive, as required, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 17541(a)(1)(G)).
RICO Litigation, Fraud, Complex Business Litigation, Veil-Piercing Litigation: (2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101793 – 3:10-cv-432 – M.D. Pa. 2011 – U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101818 – M.D. Pa. – 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143686.
Tort Litigation, Multi-Vehicle Truck Accident, Federal Court Injury Case: (2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12613 – 3:07-cv-1490 M.D. Pa.
Grand Jury Litigation: (2010) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77082, 39 Media L. Rep. 2689 – 3:10-0221 – M.D. Pa. (Defeated newspaper Motion for Access to Certain Grand Jury Materials because, inter alia, the pursuit of additional discovery and, perhaps, better evidence, is not a basis to compromise grand jury secrecy.)
Jury Trial, Employment Litigation: (2008)(Won defense jury verdict for employer) 3:05-cv-556 – M.D. Pa.
IP Litigation, Federal Civil Procedure Disputes: (2008) (Won motion to set aside default) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56773, 2008 WL 2914371 – 4:08-CV-00484 – M.D. Pa.
Contract Litigation, Statutory Litigation, Employment Litigation, Choice of Law Disputes: (2007)(Won partial summary judgment) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20253, 2007 WL 906417 – 3:CV-03-1137 – M.D. Pa.
Jury Trial, Interstate Fraud Case: (2006)(Won defense jury verdict for corporate defendant in interstate fraud case) 2:04-cv-02702 – E.D. Pa.
Civil Conspiracy Litigation, Federal Motions Practice: (2006) (Won motion to dismiss) 549 F. Supp. 2d 621 – M.D. Pa.
Corporate Note Dispute: (2006) (Won partial summary judgment) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2253, 2006 WL 166574 – 04-cv-2702 – E.D. Pa.
Jury Trial, Employment Litigation: (2005)(Won defense jury verdict) 3:02-cv-00805 – M.D. Pa.
Sentencing Appeal, Federal Criminal Appeal: (2005) (Won federal sentencing appeal – Sentence vacated with remand for resentencing) 142 Fed. Appx. 653, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20029 – 04-2796 – 3d Cir. .
Commercial Dispute, Statute of Frauds Litigation: (2005) 71 Pa. D. & C 4th 157, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 176 (Pa. Com. Pl. – Lackawanna County).
White Collar: (2004)(Complex post-indictment negotiations achieved declination of prosecution and voluntary dismissal of 18 U.S.C. § 472 counterfeiting case) 3:03-cr-00015 – M.D. Pa.
Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation, Drilling Litigation, Contract Litigation: (2004) (Won summary judgment for drilling company) 3:01-cv-01931 – M.D. Pa.
White Collar: (2003)[assisted appellate counsel] 336 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2003).
Lanham Act Litigation: (2002)(Successfully briefed and defended injunction hearing resulting in settlement of case) 1:02-cv-03631 – S.D.N.Y.
White Collar Defense: (2001) 789 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super.)(Order denying arbitration was vacated and case was remanded for hearing wherein broker would be given opportunity to demonstrate that arbitration provision was fair under the circumstances, was knowingly entered into, and thus was not the result of a breach of the confidential relationship between broker and investor) 3:00-cr-00318 – M.D. Pa. (In complex white collar sentencing, obtained substantial departure over gov’t objection based on exceptional acceptance of responsibility resulting in probation sentence including 5 months halfway house and 5 months home confinement despite gov’t request for incarceration and allocution by victim’s counsel seeking 5 years of incarceration).
White Collar: (2000)(As co-counsel, tried several-month complex federal criminal securities fraud trial, involving nearly-billion dollar publicly traded company, $100s of millions in alleged losses and 100s of thousands of pages of underlying evidence; questioned numerous fact and expert witnesses) 96-cr-00274 – M.D.Pa.
Complex White Collar Defense Funding Litigation, D&O Coverage Litigation, Ancillary Jurisdiction Litigation: (1998)(Drafted and litigated criminal defendant’s funding motion adjudicated by 19 F. Supp. 2d 327 – M.D. Pa.)(Defendant’s dispute with employer’s insurer over funding of defendant’s defense in criminal matter did not arise out of same nucleus of operative facts as criminal prosecution and criminal court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over non-party insurer. See, Decision of Interest – Southern District DOI – New York Law Journal – page 8 – col. 4 – vol. 230 – Aug. 13, 2003 (“Thus, although the . . . Court . . . refused to adjudicate a criminal defendant’s suit against a third-party insurer [as part of the defendant’s criminal case], the Court agreed . . . that a federal court may exercise criminal ancillary jurisdiction over a fee dispute. Without delineating the precise boundary of criminal ancillary jurisdiction, I too conclude that ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised over a fee dispute arising out of a criminal case. . . .”).