Steve is one of the three Managing Partners at FLB Law and brings more than three decades of experience representing clients in complex litigation matters. His practice focuses on business disputes, employment litigation, insurance coverage matters, and appellate advocacy. Throughout his career, Steve has successfully represented clients before judges and juries in state and federal courts across Connecticut and has argued appeals before both state and federal appellate courts.

In addition to this recognition, Steve is a member of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers and American Board of Trial Advocates. He has earned an AV Preeminent® Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer-review rating recognizing attorneys for their legal ability and ethical standards, and has been named to Super Lawyers in the area of Business Litigation. Steve is also a long-standing member of American Inns of Court.

‍ ‍

In the federal legal community, Steve previously served two terms on the Grievance Committee for the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which handles complaints of unethical conduct by attorneys in that court. He has also served as pro bono trial counsel for parties in federal court.

We are proud to have Steve leading our team and congratulate him on this well-deserved recognition.

About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County, while the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

About Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession. The organization evaluates attorneys based on confidential peer feedback and professional achievements to identify leading lawyers across practice areas and geographic regions. The “Lawyer of the Year” recognition highlights a single attorney in each practice area and metropolitan region whose work has earned particularly high recognition from peers. For more information about its methodology and rankings, visit bestlawyers.com

We invite you to read the full conversation below.

Job title: Chair, real estate and land use & zoning practices

Practice area(s): Real Estate and land use & zoning practices

Law school and year of graduation: Roger Williams University School of Law, 2007

How long have you been at the firm?

Since its founding in 2021.

What year were you promoted/elected to your current role?

2021

Were you a partner at another firm before joining your present firm? If so, which one, how long were you there and when did you leave?

Yes, I was a partner at Halloran & Sage and served on its administrative committee. Along with my current partners, Tom Lambert and Steve Fogerty, we decided to leave and establish our own firm. Steve was the managing partner of Halloran’s Westport office, and given our managerial roles at the prior firm, it made sense that we would serve as co-managers at our new firm.

How would you describe your careers trajectory (was it organic or an active pursuit)?‍ ‍

My career trajectory was largely organic. I started a small firm in Norwalk with about eight lawyers, then moved to a large Connecticut firm as an associate. Over time, I worked my way up, eventually being elected to the administrative committee. As my role expanded, I took on more leadership responsibilities, grew my team, and developed my own client base, which ultimately led to the decision to establish our own firm

What do you think was the deciding point for the firm in electing/promoting you to your current role? Was it performance on a specific case? A personality trait? Making connections with the right people?

Our firm was built on collaborative leadership model. Tom, Steve and I bring unique strengths to the table and value each other’s perspectives. We wanted a structure where decisions were made through open discussions rather than relying on a single leader. This approach allows us to share managerial responsibilities while maintaining our individual legal practices without being overburdened by administrative tasks.

‍What unique challenges do you face as it related to your role?

Balancing a busy legal practice with managerial responsibilities is a challenge. My focus includes managing the private practice groups, such as real estate and land use, and overseeing the firm’s marketing, PR, and community outreach strategies. Another challenge is succession planning, ensuring that as attorneys retire, the firm continues to grow organically while maintaining strong client relationships and a well-established presence in our local and national markets.

What’s the best piece of advice you give to someone who wants to rise up the ranks to lead an office?

Developing a strong legal practice and growing your own book of business is essential. Before managing others, you must understand what it takes to handle clients, business development, and problem-solving. Leading a firm requires experience in dealing with complex client matters, managing people, and navigating the challenges of running a business.

‍Who had the greatest influence in your careers that helped propel you to your current role?

Two individuals had a significant impact on my careers. Larry Weisman taught me how to navigate zoning work, interact with local officials, and establish a respected reputation in the community. His mentorship helped me develop relationships that sustained my practice even after his retirement. Additionally, Andy Pforzheimer, the founder of Barcelona and bartaco and a longtime client, demonstrated the importance of strategic thinking, high standards, and problem-solving qualities that are essential in both law and business leadership.

‍How do you utilize technology to benefit the firm/practice and/or business development?

We leverage tools like Clearview Social to maintain a strong social media presence, which helps with business development. Additionally, we use HubSpot for CRM and marketing purposes, ensuring that we engage effectively with clients and prospective business partners.

Knowing what you do now, what advice would you give to your younger self and/or what would you do differently?

I would place a greater emphasis on business development early in my career. Cultivating referral sources and building a client base is crucial. Many firms struggle with how to incentivize young lawyers to engage in business development while maintaining billable hours. The ability to bring in clients provides job security and career flexibility, which I experienced firsthand when transitioning to our own firm.

Do you have a prediction on how the legal industry will evolve over the next several years?

In Connecticut, I see an aging legal workforce and fewer young lawyers venturing into solo or small practices. Many are opting for larger firms, and I anticipate a trend where small and mid-sized firms either merge or are absorbed by larger firms, The traditional sole practitioner or small boutique firm may become less common as industry consolidation continues.

Please share with us any firm or industry initiatives that you are working on as well as the impact you hope to achieve.

One initiative we are particularly proud of is our Real Estate Outlook, which provides an educational platform for local businesses to understand real estate market trends. Additionally, we are deeply involved in community initiatives through our ACCELERATE program and grass roots volunteerism, ensuring our firm remains engaged and invested in local development and economic growth.

What career advice do you wish more people ask you?

I wish more people would ask me about the importance of building your ow book of business. If you have your own clients, you control your career. When we left our prior firm, all of our clients came with us because they hired us, not just the firm. Having a strong client relationship provides career security, flexibility, and the ability to take calculated risks.

As a law firm leader, what impact would you like to have on your firm and/or the legal industry as a whole.

We want to to build a firm that offers a great working environment where attorneys can balance their professional and personal lives. Additionally, our firm aims to positively impact the community by contributing to local development through our legal work. My goal is to create a sustainable firm that fosters professional growth and maintains a strong reputation within the legal and business communities.

Read the full article: How I Made Firm Managing Partner: 'Cultivating Referral Sources Is Crucial,' Says Eric Bernheim of FLB Law | Law.com

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

The firm’s four ranked attorneys are:

Joshua Auxier – Connecticut – Commercial Disputes

Thomas Lambert – Connecticut – Commercial Disputes

Matthias Sportini – Connecticut – Commercial Disputes

Brian Tims – Connecticut -- Commercial Disputes

‍ ‍

“This recognition from The Legal 500 is a tremendous honor for our firm and a significant acknowledgment of the exceptional work Joshua, Thomas, Matthias, and Brian deliver to our clients every day,” said Eric Bernheim, Managing Partner. “Having four of our attorneys named to the 2026 Connecticut US City Elite list highlights the strength of our Commercial Disputes team and the high level of work they deliver. We are proud of this achievement and grateful to the clients and community whose trust and support make recognitions like this possible.”  

‍ ‍

About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County, while the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

About Legal 500

Legal 500 is a leading international research and ranking platform that evaluates the strengths of law firms and individual attorneys in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. Founded in 1987, it delivers independent, data-driven, and peer-reviewed analysis to help corporate counsel and business leaders identify top legal talent. Its Legal 500 US Elite series spotlights standout attorneys operating at the highest level within key U.S. business centers, recognizing practitioners who are handling sophisticated, market-leading work in their respective cities and states. Rankings are based on market research, industry insight, and ongoing engagement with the legal community. For more information about its methodology and Connecticut Commercial Disputes rankings, visit its website.

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

Homeowners, commercial building owners and developers often need a variance to build or renovate structures on their Connecticut property. When clients are unable to get a specific project approved, we must think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to help them achieve their goals. Whether by finding a new path to comply with existing regulations or by getting new regulations passed, we have helped residential and commercial clients meet a broad range of real estate objectives.  

Alternative to Proving a Hardship

FLB Law represented a family seeking to renovate their New Canaan home to accommodate their son who has a medical condition that requires him to use a wheelchair and avoid sun exposure. A local land use attorney in New Canaan declined to take the case, seeing no feasible way to achieve a favorable outcome. The homeowners wanted to add two pavilions next to their backyard pool, to allow their son to spend time with the family near the pool, and to enlarge their garage to accommodate a van for transporting their son and his wheelchair.

Typically, proving a legal hardship – which is a very high bar – is required to obtain a variance. The local attorney understood that the family’s situation did not rise to the level of legal hardship, but he didn’t have other strategies to pursue. We, on the other hand, took a different approach. We set out to prove that the pavilions and the garage renovations were reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA). We argued before the New Canaan Planning and Zoning Commission that if we could demonstrate that these were reasonable accommodations under those federal laws, we would not have to achieve the high threshold of proving a legal hardship. The zoning commission consulted with the town attorney, who agreed with our legal argument. At the hearing, we successfully showed that the requested accommodations were reasonable under the ADA and FHA, and the family was able to get their variance and make renovations to improve their quality of life.  

Seeking Lot Coverage Relief for an Addition

Another Connecticut family sought lot coverage relief under the zoning regulations to build a 500-square-foot addition onto their approximately 2,000-square-foot historic home. Lot coverage refers to the percentage of a parcel that is allowed to be covered by buildings, patios, driveways and other impervious surfaces. The home sits on a small lot, and the desired addition – which the blended family sought to make room for kids returning from college – would push the total coverage over the allowable limit. Because the property was a historic structure, we originally sought approval under a regulation that allows the zoning commission to grant coverage relief for historic structures, to encourage property owners to preserve them in perpetuity. The regulation is based on the idea that permitting certain improvements gives property owners more incentive to keep the historic structure instead of building anew. The town, however, denied the relief mainly because the addition would impede neighbors’ water views.

We reached into our arsenal and succeeded under the town’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations. We found a loophole in the regulation that states that accessory buildings only need to be set back 15 feet from the property line. The architects were able to redesign the addition to comply with the setback. Therefore, we used the ADU regulations to secure approval for the family to build an even bigger addition as a separate unit on the same lot just 10 feet from the house.

Non-Residential Balconies

When existing regulations block a client’s real estate objectives, we turn to another tool in our toolbox: advocating for new regulations. For example, a tenant in an office building overlooking the Saugatuck River in Westport wanted to add a balcony to their unit facing the river. We secured approval from the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission for a zoning regulation text amendment that now permits up to two non-residential balconies on commercial buildings abutting the Saugatuck River.

The regulation amendment was necessary because the office buildings along the Saugatuck River are non-conforming and cannot generally be altered without a variance. The amended regulations exclude up to 500 square feet for each balcony from coverage and setback restrictions. After securing the regulation amendment on behalf of one client, we used it to allow another client to also build a balcony on a non-residential building.

In getting the regulation amended, we argued that balconies protect, preserve, and enhance visual access to the Saugatuck River, which is one of the objectives outlined in Westport’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). The balconies also support the POCD by guiding business and economic development in Westport so that it is appropriate for the community and enhances community character.  

 Eric D. Bernheim, managing partner at FLB Law in Westport, Conn., represents tenants, developers, municipalities and lenders in transactions of all kinds, including leases, acquisitions, dispositions, and financing, in addition to handling zoning and land use matters. Contact Eric at bernheim@flb.law or 203.635.2200. For more information about FLB Law, click here.

FLB Law Managing Partner Eric Bernheim, head of the firm’s Land Use and Real Estate practices, recently obtained zoning approval for a Connecticut family seeking to add a 500-square-foot addition to their historic 2,000-square-foot home in New Canaan. The approval allows the family to move forward with expanding their living space to accommodate children returning from college.

The project required lot coverage relief under the town’s zoning regulations, which limit the percentage of a property that can be occupied by buildings, patios, and other impervious surfaces. Because the home sits on a small lot, the proposed addition would have exceeded the maximum coverage allowed.

FLB Law initially sought approval under a regulation that permits the zoning commission to grant coverage relief for historic structures but concern that the addition would obstruct the neighbors’ water views resulted in a denial.

The firm then identified a viable alternative under the town’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations. A provision within the ADU rules allows accessory buildings to be set back only 15 feet from the property line. Working with the project architects, FLB Law helped redesign the addition to comply with this requirement, and the firm obtained the necessary zoning permit.

This outcome of this matter demonstrates FLB Law’s experience in navigating complex zoning regulations and securing approvals that balance property improvement with community and regulatory considerations.

FLB Law Managing Partner Eric Bernheim recently participated in a national LinkedIn Live roundtable focused on due diligence, risk management and real estate strategy in restaurant expansion. The discussion, titled “Due Diligence or Due Disaster? Errors in Restaurant Expansion,” brought together senior leaders from restaurant development, design, operations and advisory firms to share practical lessons from projects across the country.

The session was moderated by Kaleb Harrell, CEO and cofounder of Hawkers Asian Street Fare, and featured an all-star panel including Eric, Brian Escamilla of Senior Vice President at Field Services Unlimited, Robert Fargo, Senior Vice President of Development at SPB Hospitality, Chelsea Meeks Mayers, VP of Development and Design at Barcelona Wine Bar and JoDee Johnson, Director of Design at Darden Restaurants.

Legal Perspective on Risk and Lease Protection

During the roundtable, Eric contributed the legal perspective on how early due diligence directly informs stronger lease negotiations and long-term protections for restaurant tenants. He discussed the importance of detailed work letters, clearly defined landlord and tenant responsibilities, hazard mitigation provisions and surrender terms that reduce unexpected costs at both the beginning and end of a lease.

Topics Covered:

Panelists explored a range of issues impacting restaurant growth, including:

• The role of early due diligence in saving money, accelerating timelines and reducing risk.

• Common causes of delayed openings and dead rent, such as utilities, permitting and third-party dependencies.

• How technical surveys and digital site documentation improve budget accuracy.

• Balancing brand standards, operational needs and design intent in both ground-up and second-generation spaces.

The conversation highlighted how collaboration between legal, development and design teams, grounded in accurate site data, is essential to successful restaurant expansion in today’s market.

Listen to the roundtable.

For owners of gyms, fitness centers and health clubs, liability waivers are essential tools for managing risk. Yet too often, businesses treat these as “set-it-and-forget-it” documents, putting a waiver in place and neglecting to review it again for years. An outdated waiver can be a liability in today’s heavily regulated fitness industry, especially in consumer-protective states like New York and Connecticut. If a dispute arises and one or more of the terms are out-of-date, the court may throw the entire waiver out. It’s important to review your waivers annually or whenever your business undergoes a significant change.   

Changes to Laws or Your Operations

Both New York and Connecticut periodically update consumer-protection laws regulating gyms and health clubs. (Tennis and racquet clubs may be subject to slightly different laws.) Changes, which are often minor, may range from cancellation period updates and new bonding requirement thresholds to novel court rulings that impact waiver enforceability. Failure to update your paperwork accordingly can leave you vulnerable in the event of a lawsuit.  

It’s also important to review your waivers if your business undergoes a significant change. For instance, relocation to a new facility, a change in ownership, or the addition of a youth program would necessitate changes to your waiver documents. 

Limits to Disclaiming Negligence

Many gym owners are surprised to learn what limited liability waivers cover, particularly in New York. Businesses in New York cannot waive responsibility for their own negligence. New York law (General Obligations Law § 5-326) makes any clause that tries to release a health club from liability for its own negligence toward paying members void as against public policy. In other words, if a member is injured because the club failed to use reasonable care (e.g., a machine malfunctions due to poor maintenance, or an instructor gives negligent advice) the club cannot escape liability through a waiver. Connecticut is more open to enforcing liability waivers, but they are closely scrutinized and can be struck down if they are overly broad or violate public policy, particularly in the health-club context. Courts require that exculpatory clauses be clear, explicit about releasing negligence claims, and not contrary to public policy. Waivers cannot protect against conduct that crosses into recklessness or intentional wrongdoing, and even for ordinary negligence, Connecticut courts may refuse to enforce a waiver if it would unduly endanger consumers.

While New York does not allow you to waive your own negligence, it does recognize the legal doctrine of assumption of risk. A club member is assumed to understand the inherent, obvious risks of an activity, such as running on a treadmill, participating in a boxing class, or using free weights. Your waiver should reinforce this concept with clear, conspicuous language affirming that members recognize and voluntarily assume these inherent risks. Courts expect certain disclosures to be in bold, all caps, or otherwise highly visible. 

Membership Fees and Contract Terms

Both states impose financial-security requirements on health clubs, which can include escrows, bonds, or contributions to a guaranty fund, particularly when clubs take significant prepayments or sell longer-term contracts. In New York, for example, health clubs must generally maintain an escrow or bond unless they meet specific conditions relating to contract length, total price, and how payments are collected. Connecticut uses a registration and guaranty-fund system with strict rules on maximum contract length and how much can be paid up front. To avoid this obligation, many clubs set rates just below the statutory threshold – but the price must be a true monthly rate, not bundled with initiation fees or hidden charges. Additionally, New York prohibits charging more than $3,600 per year for health club services. If your contract exceeds these limits, you risk contract unenforceability and penalties.  

Mandatory Refund and Cancellation Policies

Your agreement must clearly outline members’ rights regarding refunds and cancellations. In both states, members have a three-day cooling-off period to cancel a health club contract after receiving a copy of it, with a full or pro-rated refund as required by statute. A member may also cancel their membership and receive a pro rata refund if the facility permanently closes or, in New York, relocates more than 10 miles from its original site. In both New York and Connecticut, members may cancel if they move more than 25 miles from any affiliated location or if they are unable to participate for at least six months due to a documented medical condition. Similarly, upon a member’s death, a pro rata refund is owed to the member’s estate. Connecticut requires refunds (and written confirmation of cancellation) within 15 business days of proper notice; New York requires refunds within 10 business days. Waivers that omit these rights or that provide an inaccurate address or outdated form of notice can be challenged. New York law prohibits deceptive practices and expects health clubs to provide straightforward, reasonable cancellation methods. Practices that make cancellation unduly burdensome, like insisting on in-person cancellation with limited hours or imposing unnecessary hurdles, have drawn regulatory scrutiny and can be treated as deceptive. 

Recordkeeping and Risk Management Best Practices

As the statute of limitations for contract claims is six years in both states, gyms should keep records for at least that period. When waivers are signed, staff should verify that the name at the top of the waiver matches the signature and that the signer is the actual participant (or the parent/guardian of a minor, if applicable).

If you are sued and have not updated your waiver in a decade, courts may view that as evidence of disregard for consumer rights, which will likely weaken your defense. Conversely, if you review and update your waivers annually, courts often take that into account, especially if a law changed mid-year and you were compliant up until that point. Courts will also consider whether the error was material to the contract and if the contract appears fair and transparent.

Reviewing your waiver documents on an annual basis with a lawyer experienced in fitness-industry contracts is an important facet of risk management best practices. It is also critical that you periodically review your liability insurance coverage to ensure it aligns with your club’s current operations.

Andrea Coppola, an associate at FLB Law in Westport, Conn., is a trusted advisor to gyms, fitness centers, and health clubs that operate in New York and Connecticut. She draws on her multidisciplinary foundation and expertise in commercial contracts to deliver clear, strategic advice tailored to each client’s specific goals. For more information about FLB Law, click here.

FLB Law attorney Andrea Coppola presented a timely talk on landlord–tenant issues to students at her alma mater, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Addressing the class titled Real Estate Externship Seminar, she delivered a presentation entitled “Commercial Leasing” to an audience of approximately fifteen law students.

In her presentation, Andrea discussed the full lifecycle of a commercial lease transaction, from LOIs to lease expirations and terminations, highlighting key negotiation points, common pitfalls, and drafting strategies that protect clients in real-world deals. She also walked students through practical issues that arise during lease administration, including CAM reconciliations, tenant improvement obligations, operating covenants, default/notice mechanics, and how to navigate assignments and subleases. Her talk emphasized how commercial leasing blends legal analysis with business judgment, giving students a clear view of what effective deal-making looks like in practice.

At FLB Law, Andrea is an associate in the Real Estate and Land Use & Zoning practices. Her primary focus is guiding both landlords and tenants through leasing transactions, advising national restaurant-group clients including Hawkers, Mecha Noodle Bar, bartaco, Barcelona Wine Bar, Sixty Vines, Mexican Sugar and Hatch. She also counsels clients from emerging businesses to large-scale retailers on acquisitions, dispositions, financing, and development, leveraging her background as in-house counsel and litigator to deliver business-minded legal strategy.

When settling civil cases, many attorneys focus exclusively on one thing: the number. The dollar amount to be paid takes center stage during pretrial conferences, mediations, and even informal settlement discussions. Non-monetary terms and conditions are often treated as an afterthought, only broached after the parties have painstakingly negotiated a dollar figure. Unfortunately, this practice can lead to unnecessary disputes and renewed negotiations over relatively minor terms that can derail a deal that was apparently done.    

In my civil litigation practice, I routinely convey my client’s non-monetary terms and conditions to opposing counsel before commencing substantive settlement discussions. This proactive step streamlines negotiations, minimizes conflict, and helps shield clients from unpleasant surprises.

Common Terms and Conditions

In civil litigation cases – including personal injury, employment, contract, construction defect, and property disputes – certain terms and conditions can be deal-breakers for one or more of the parties involved. For instance, in a personal injury case, the defendant and/or the insurance company may require that the plaintiff agree to keep the settlement confidential. Additionally, insurers often require that plaintiffs provide their Social Security number to permit a search for Medicare liens and existing obligations. In cases involving children or estates, the settlement may need to be conditioned on probate court approval. In multi-defendant cases, it is critical to clarify upfront whether any settlement would resolve the entire matter or apply only to a single party.

In employment cases, employers frequently insist on confidentiality clauses as well as non-disparagement provisions to prevent the former employee from publicly criticizing the company. For property disputes, clauses pertaining to the condition of the property and timing of departure may be required to protect a client’s interests.

If these requirements are not raised until after the number is agreed upon, they may trigger renewed negotiations. Opposing counsel may demand additional money in exchange for a new term, or reject the belatedly proposed term altogether – putting what appeared to be a done deal back in limbo. Further, a party may seek to enforce the settlement thereby resulting in further litigation.

Communicating the Terms Upfront

While it takes a bit of time and effort upfront, the practice of itemizing and conveying non-monetary terms prior to a settlement conference or mediation has several benefits. Typically, I send opposing counsel an email that itemizes the required terms and conditions. This laundry list of items will be tailored to the case. I invite counsel to review the terms and either sign off on them or raise any concerns before the conference or mediation. If a concern is raised about the details of a term or condition, I often will send a draft release to opposing counsel so they can see the specific language sought. When agreement is reached, the email exchange serves to memorialize the non-monetary terms; either side can refer back to it if an issue arises later. The language can then serve as a term sheet for the settlement and release documents. 

This upfront approach allows me to better serve my clients’ interests. When an attorney seeks to negotiate secondary terms after a number has been established, leverage is often lost. The other party may be less inclined to agree to new conditions after securing an acceptable dollar amount. Clients appreciate that all their terms and conditions are met without any last-minute surprises or disappointments.

In addition, this practice promotes good faith and transparency. Opposing counsel has often expressed appreciation to me for disclosing required terms upfront. Even if opposing attorneys do not agree with every term, they know it is something we will need to deal with before the conference. They appreciate that I am not putting them in a position where they have to go back to their clients later to discuss a new term or condition.

 The Takeaway

Securing non-monetary terms and conditions in advance allows both sides to focus solely on arriving at a number during settlement negotiations. By hammering out terms and conditions upfront, attorneys can protect their clients, create goodwill, and make the process more efficient.

Brian E. Tims, a partner at FLB Law in Westport, Conn., represents businesses of all sizes as well as individuals in a variety of litigation matters. He previously worked for one of the country’s largest property and casualty insurance companies and has more than 15 years of private legal practice focused on litigation, including insurance defense. Contact Brian at tims@flb.law or (475) 236-5219. For more information about FLB Law, click here.

Using video surveillance and novel case precedent, FLB Law partners Joshua Auxier and Matt Sportini successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a large grocery retailer in a premises liability case involving a customer who alleged that she was injured after tripping in the store’s aisle due to a stocking cart. They persuaded the court that there was no defective or dangerous condition and that the alleged hazard was open and obvious, eliminating any duty to warn.

The plaintiff claimed she tripped over a stocking cart positioned near store employees and sustained more than $20,000 in medical expenses. Her counsel routinely seeks multiple six-figure settlements on these types of cases. Surveillance footage, however, captured the incident showing the position of the cart and its actual size.

The motion for summary judgment relied on both Connecticut and out-of-state case law to demonstrate that the stocking cart was open and obvious and was not a dangerous condition but a common occurrence in grocery stores.  Thus, the court found no issue of fact, relying on the video and citing to case law put before it by Josh and Matt.  This result highlights how FLB Law’s attorneys work with clients to marshal evidence and case law that others miss to overcome the odds to resolve the case in the client’s favor.

Westport, Conn. (November 6, 2025) – FLB Law, a full-service law firm based in Westport, is proud to announce its recognition in the 2026 Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms rankings across 13 practice areas. This year, the firm was honored in:

• Commercial Litigation

• Environmental Law

• Family Law

• Family Law Mediation

• Insurance Law

• Land Use and Zoning Law

• Litigation – Banking and Finance

• Litigation – Insurance

• Litigation – Labor and Employment

• Personal Injury Litigation

• Real Estate Law

• Tax Law

• Trusts and Estates

 “Being honored in 13 practices this year is an incredible distinction,” said Stephen Fogerty, Managing Partner. “It reflects the talent and dedication of our attorneys and the trust our clients place in us. We’re proud to serve Fairfield County and beyond with the same commitment to excellence that has guided as always guided our firm and our attorneys.”

Firms included in the 2026 Best Law Firms® list are recognized for professional excellence with impressive ratings from clients and peers. To be considered for this milestone achievement, at least one lawyer in the law firm must be recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

 About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County. At the same time, the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

 About Best Law Firms®

Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers® and respected for over 14 years, is the most credible ranking of exceptional law firms globally. It is rooted in a rigorous, peer-to-peer, industry-driven evaluation. A ranking from Best Law Firms signifies a high-quality practice and a breadth of legal expertise. Ranked firms, presented in three tiers, are recognized on a national and metropolitan scale, providing legal professionals with an elevated stature from the Best Law Firms recognition. For more information, visit www.bestlawfirms.com.

WESTPORT, Conn. (October 28, 2025) – FLB Law, a full-service law firm based in Westport, is thrilled to announce that Partner Matthias (Matt) Sportini has been named a Litigation Future Star in Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 guide. This marks Sportini’s first recognition in the publication, following the firm’s inaugural submission.

Sportini has built a strong reputation in civil litigation, handling matters ranging from commercial disputes, motor vehicle accidents, and premises liability matters to construction defect cases. His client base includes insurance companies, local and regional businesses and organizations, and individuals, with cases in both state and federal courts across Connecticut.

“Since being promoted to partner in 2024, Matt has distinguished himself through his legal acumen, dedication to clients, and collaborative style,” said Managing Partner Thomas Lambert. “Being named a Litigation Future Star is a well-deserved recognition of his hard work and talent.”

This recognition follows a string of accolades for Sportini, including Fairfield County 40 Under 40 Business Leader and honors such as Connecticut Super Lawyers Rising Stars and Best Lawyers Ones to Watch.

About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County. At the same time, the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

Stephen Fogerty continues to make Top 50 list; Auxier celebrates 10 years ranked in Super Lawyers

Westport, Conn. (October 21, 2025) FLB Law is proud to announce that eight of its attorneys have been selected for inclusion on the 2025 Connecticut Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.

Notable honors this year include Stephen Fogerty’s continued recognition in Connecticut’s Top 50, an honor he has held since 2021, and Joshua Auxier’s milestone anniversary celebrating 10 years in Super Lawyers.

 “We take great pride in the fact that these honors come from our peers,” said Managing Partner Stephen P. Fogerty. “FLB Law has built a reputation in the Connecticut legal community for professionalism, skill, and integrity. Being recognized by other attorneys is a meaningful acknowledgment of the respect our team has earned through the quality of our work and the results we deliver.”

Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Those recognized from FLB Law include:

Connecticut Super Lawyers 2025

• Joshua M. Auxier – Professional Liability: Defense

• Eric D. Bernheim – Real Estate

• Stephen P. Fogerty – Business Litigation

• Thomas P. Lambert – Business Litigation

• Robert A. Rhodes – Personal Injury – Defense

• Alan S. Rubenstein – Family Law

• Brian E. Tims – Personal Injury – Defense

 Connecticut Rising Stars 2025

•  Matthias Sportini – Civil Litigation: Defense

 Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, selects attorneys through a multiphase process that includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. No more than five percent of lawyers in each state are named to the Super Lawyers list, and no more than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list.

About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County. At the same time, the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

About Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a research-driven, peer-influenced rating service that highlights attorneys who have attained high levels of peer recognition and professional achievement. Attorneys are selected using a patented multiphase selection process that includes peer nominations and third-party research. The Rising Stars list features top attorneys who are either 40 years of age or younger or who have been practicing for 10 years or less. The Super Lawyers lists are published in Super Lawyers magazines and city and regional publications nationwide.

“We are excited to welcome Justin to our team,” said Eric Bernheim, a FLB Law managing partner and head of the firm’s Real Estate and Land Use & Zoning practices. “His unique background in real estate and law adds depth to our practice, and we look forward to the contributions he will make.”

Before earning his J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law, Glaser worked in commercial real estate with experience that included lease origination, negotiation and drafting, asset management, acquisition and disposition, and bank financing. He also holds a master’s degree in real estate finance and investment from New York University.

While in law school, Glaser completed judicial internships and summer associate positions in real estate and corporate finance. He also served as an editor of the Connecticut Law Review.

After graduating, Glaser served as a judicial law clerk for the New Jersey Superior Court, where he reviewed case law, distilled party filings, drafted legal decisions and mediated disputes.

Glaser is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He uses his business and legal background to advise clients on both litigation and real estate matters with an emphasis on practical solutions and clear communication.

About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Chambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County, while the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information visit flb.law.

In a recent episode of the podcast, I Am The Law, FLB Law Partner Eric Bernheim shared insights into his unique practice that blends land use, zoning, and commercial real estate law.

Bernheim, whose background spans everything from criminal court to civil litigation, explained how his diverse early experience shaped the problem-solving skills he now uses to help property owners, developers, and businesses. He noted that handling both real estate transactions and zoning matters is uncommon in Connecticut, a distinction that allows him to guide clients seamlessly through the permitting and entitlement process while also managing complex deals.

A significant portion of Bernheim’s practice focuses on restaurant leasing. He represents several emerging restaurant brands expanding nationally, including Barcelona Wine Bar, Bar Taco, and 60 Vines. He emphasized the importance of negotiating strong, consistent leases to support growth and protect clients during eventual sales or expansions. “We make sure our leases are structured so that when buyers conduct due diligence, they see a strong, consistent portfolio,” Bernheim said.

Bernheim also discussed the importance of relationship-building and collaboration in negotiations. “If you understand everyone’s pressure points, you can bridge the gap and get to a deal that works for all sides,” he explained. This client-focused approach, combined with years of experience, has helped him build a reputation that draws referrals not only from clients but also from landlords and opposing counsel.

Reflecting on founding FLB Law in 2021, Bernheim said the decision to leave a larger firm during the pandemic stemmed from a desire for independence and direct control over client service. Since launching, the firm has retained nearly all its clients, underscoring the principle that, as Bernheim puts it, “people hire lawyers, not law firms.”

The full episode offers a deep dive into the intersection of real estate law, business strategy, and client relationships, making it a valuable listen for attorneys, developers, and anyone interested in the legal side of commercial growth.

Personal injury verdicts are on the rise in Connecticut. In 2022, a Connecticut jury awarded a family $100 million – the highest personal injury verdict in state history – after a 1,300-pound cube of lighting equipment fell on a warehouse worker, rendering him paraplegic. This year, a 22-year-old Connecticut man was awarded $45 million after he was permanently paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, in which an illegally parked tow truck blocked the sightlines for him and another driver. Other Connecticut juries have recently awarded personal injury verdicts extending into the tens of millions of dollars, particularly in cases involving corporate defendants. Given the current environment, defendants must act strategically to limit their risk. Below are some approaches that have proven to be effective in reducing exposure for our defense clients.

 Alternative Dispute Resolution

Depending on the circumstances of a case, we often advise our clients to explore alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which includes private mediation and private arbitration. For a dispute to be resolved via ADR, both sides must agree to it, but as mediation and arbitration each offer certain advantages for both the defendant and the plaintiff, they are commonly used in personal injury disputes. In many situations, the use of ADR has allowed our clients to significantly curtail their exposure.

This article focuses on private mediation and arbitration.  However, the judicial branch also offers alternative dispute resolution assistance, including mediation and arbitration, which take place with a sitting judge. 

Mediation

Mediation is a non-binding process in which both sides choose a neutral third party – typically an attorney or retired judge – to guide negotiations between the two parties and their attorneys. The mediator does not render a decision but uses proven techniques to help guide both sides to an agreement. Mediation is less formal than arbitration or trial, and either party can walk away from the proceedings at any time.

If either party is unreasonable in their demands or offer, mediation may be the more reasonable path. A mediator listens to both sides and pokes holes in the positions that the parties are taking. The objective point of view of an informed, neutral party may help to close the gap in settlement discussions. The mediator’s guidance may persuade the parties to reconsider their position and try to reach a settlement rather than rolling the dice with a jury.

In mediation, both parties have some control over the outcome, which many plaintiffs and defendants find preferable compared to the unknown verdict at the end of a trial. And when it is successful, mediation is a relatively quick, inexpensive way to resolve a dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, both sides would have invested time and money with nothing to show for it.

Arbitration

More formal than mediation, arbitration is a quasi-judicial proceeding before a neutral third party, who is typically a lawyer or retired judge. As with mediation, both sides must agree on the arbitrator, but unlike mediation, the arbitrator will render a decision. Arbitration can be binding or non-binding; with non-binding arbitration, a party dissatisfied with the outcome can reject the decision and advance the case toward trial. But with binding arbitration, the arbitrator renders a legally enforceable decision – including the damages to be paid, if applicable – to which the parties must abide.

In personal injury cases, both sides often agree to resolve their dispute using a type of arbitration known as high-low arbitration, in which the potential award must fall somewhere between a high and low figure agreed upon in advance. This method limits the upside and downside exposure for both parties, providing a measure of predictability. From a plaintiff’s point of view, the floor is higher than that of a trial – where it would be $0, if they were unsuccessful in making their case – and for the defendant, the ceiling is generally much lower than a potential jury verdict.

Additionally, arbitration is typically less time consuming and costly than a trial. And unlike with a trial, the outcome in binding arbitration is final, eliminating the possibility of costly appeals that could drag on for years.

Factors That Determine the Appropriateness of ADR

After reviewing the facts related to injuries and liability in a case, we may recommend that our defense clients consider mediation or arbitration. To determine if ADR is an effective strategy, we look at several factors, including the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and potential damages, which may include economic, non-economic, and punitive damages. Economic damages refer to quantifiable losses, such as lost wages or medical bills, while non-economic damages denote less tangible losses, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Non-economic damages are subjective and difficult to quantify. Depending on the situation, a jury may also award punitive damages, which are intended to punish the defendant for reckless behavior or intentional wrongdoing.

When losses are largely economic, a potential jury award would be more predictable, so defendants might want to take their chances with a trial. But when future non-economic damages come into play, there’s greater exposure. Say a 30-year-old individual suffers 50% impairment to his leg as a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence. Since the plaintiff would have to live with that deficit for decades to come, a sympathetic jury might potentially award the individual millions of dollars.

Because the use of mediation or arbitration to resolve personal injury cases is voluntary, the reasonableness of the other party is an important factor in whether ADR is a viable avenue to pursue. However, when the parties are agreeable, mediation and arbitration have significant upsides.

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law partners Thomas P. Lambert and Matthias Sportini represent clients in litigation and transactional matters. They can be reached at lambert@flb.law and sportini@flb.law or 203.635.2200.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on June 5, 2025, that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims – Title VII claims brought by members of a majority group – are not subject to a heightened standard of proof and should be treated the same as claims brought by members of historically disadvantaged groups. Further, two Supreme Court justices issued a concurring opinion disputing the validity of the long-standing “McDonnell Douglas” framework for evaluating Title VII claims when there is no direct evidence of discrimination. Both the court’s ruling and the concurring opinion have significant implications for Connecticut employers.

The Case

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, claimed her employer discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. The Supreme Court struck down the ruling of the Sixth Circuit, which held that Ames did not have a case, based on the standard that majority-group plaintiffs must demonstrate “background circumstances” above and beyond what is required for minority-group plaintiffs to maintain a discrimination case. In its ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated the “background circumstances” test, holding that majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs have the same standard for pleading and proving workplace discrimination claims. Thus, the Supreme Court held that employment decisions cannot be based on race, gender, sexual identity, or other protected characteristics no matter the identity of the victim.

 The Concurring Opinion

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, authored a concurring opinion that cast serious doubt on the continued use of the so-called McDonnell Douglas framework, a legal standard established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), which courts routinely apply when evaluating summary judgment motions in discrimination cases in which there is no direct evidence.

When a defendant files a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff cannot prevail, courts for decades have employed the McDonnell Douglas three-part analysis to decide the motion. First, plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case by showing some evidence that an adverse employment decision was made against them based on their race, creed, gender, sexual identity, or other protected characteristic. If the plaintiff meets that low bar, the burden then shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. If the defendant meets that burden of persuasion, the court goes back and asks if the plaintiff has evidence that the defendant’s stated nondiscriminatory reason is pretext. Plaintiffs therefore have the burden of not only making their case but also showing that the reason the defendant gave for discriminating against them was pretext.

Justice Thomas takes issue with the fact that the statute and the federal rules of civil procedure give no indication that the McDonnell Douglas analysis should be used for interpreting Title VII cases. “As with the ‘background circumstances’ rule, the McDonnell Douglas framework lacks any basis in the text of Title VII and has proved difficult for courts to apply,” he wrote. He also stated, “I seriously doubt that the McDonnell Douglas framework is a suitable tool for evaluating Title VII claims at summary judgment. In my view, the framework is incompatible with the summary-judgment standard; it fails to encompass the various ways in which a plaintiff could prove his claim; it requires courts to maintain artificial distinctions between direct and circumstantial evidence; and it has created outsized judicial confusion.”

In most modern workplace discrimination cases, there is no smoking gun, such as an admission by the employer that an employee was fired or demoted due to race or gender. These cases are therefore typically based on circumstantial evidence, and the McDonnell Douglas test is a high bar for plaintiffs to meet at the summary judgment stage. As Justice Thomas wrote in assailing the use of the test, “requiring a plaintiff to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework…requires a plaintiff to prove too much at summary judgment.”

Because of the high burden, use of the McDonnell Douglas framework in evaluating summary judgment motions has led to the dismissal of many employment discrimination cases. But with the two justices’ strong rebuke of McDonnell Douglas, the future of this long-standing test may be in doubt.

The Takeaway for Employers

The Supreme Court decision may usher in a wave of reverse discrimination cases brought by members of historically advantaged groups, such as Caucasians, men, and heterosexuals. Further, if the justices’ rebuke proves to sound a death knell for the McDonnell Douglas framework, employers can expect that more discrimination claims overall will survive the summary judgment phase to advance to trial.

As an employer, you can help protect yourself by ensuring all employment decisions are supported by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as disparity in education, experience, skills, customer satisfaction scores, or work ethic, by thoroughly documenting your reasons when hiring, terminating, promoting, demoting, transferring, or making other employment decisions.   

Employee performance should be regularly reviewed in writing. When there are deficiencies in an employee’s work, you should communicate them in writing to the employee as soon as feasible, along with what the employee can do to correct the deficiency with a timeline for improvement. Employee performance forms should have space for the employee to sign their name and disagree with what you said. This helps establish a record that you communicated the information to the employee.

While performance reviews, disciplinary notices, and employee improvement plans may not be popular, they not only allow you to establish a paper trail to support your decisions, but they enhance communication in the workplace and provide employees with a greater understanding of what is expected of them.  

If you find yourself facing a discrimination claim or lawsuit, having thorough documentation to back up your reasons your employment decisions were made can go a long way in shielding your company from liability.

Joshua M. Auxier, a partner at FLB Law in Westport, Conn., is a litigator with nearly two decades of experience representing clients in professional liability, directors and officers liability, and general liability matters, including representing employers in employment law matters. Contact Josh at auxier@flb.law or 203.635.2200. For more information about FLB Law, click here.

Westport, Conn. (August 21, 2025) – FLB Law, a full-service law firm based in Westport, is pleased to announce that nine attorneys were honored with inclusion in the 2026 Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch. This is an exclusive honor given to only 5.3% of practicing attorneys who receive nominations from their colleagues.

Stephen Fogerty, one of the firm’s managing partners, was recognized for his leadership and impact on the Connecticut legal practice with the exclusive accolade of “Lawyer of the Year” in Labor & Employment Litigation in Stamford. This honor is especially significant, as it is reserved for attorneys who earn the highest level of peer feedback in their practice area and region. Each year, only one lawyer in each specialty and metropolitan area receives this distinction.

“We’re proud to see so many of our attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers. This kind of acknowledgment reflects the depth of talent across the firm and the consistent, high-level work we do for our clients,” said Stephen Fogerty, one of the firm’s managing partners. “It’s also a personal honor to be named Lawyer of the Year, and I share that recognition with the entire team, whose dedication and integrity continue to set us apart in the legal community.”

This year’s FLB Law Best Lawyers: 

• Joshua Auxier, Partner: Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

• Eric Bernheim, Managing Partner: Environmental Law, Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law

• Enrico Costantini, Partner: Corporate Law, Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law

• Stephen Fogerty, Managing Partner: Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Banking and Finance, Litigation - Insurance, Litigation - Labor and Employment

• Leslie E. Grodd, Counsel: Tax Law, Trusts and Estates

• Thomas P. Lambert, Managing Partner: Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Insurance

• Alan Rubenstein, Counsel: Collaborative Law: Family Law, Family Law, Family Law Arbitration, Family Law Mediation

• Brian Tims, Partner: Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation -Defendants

Partner Matthias Sportini was named to Best Lawyers Ones to Watch list of up and comers in Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants, and Real Estate Law

 About FLB Law, PLLC
Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County, while the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information, visit flb.law.

Westport, Conn. (August 11, 2025) On Tuesday, August 5, Westport-based full-service law firm FLB Law embraced its spirit of service during its annual Day of Service by purchasing backpacks and school supplies in support of the Sterling Community Center’s Back to School Supply Fundraiser.

 The attorneys and staff worked as a team to pack backpacks with notebooks, folders, glue sticks, pencils, pens, scissors, pencil cases, markers, crayons, and much more. This initiative is one of FLB Law’s quarterly Days of Service, each reflecting the firm’s commitment to delivering peace of mind not only to clients but also to the broader community.

  "Giving back to our community is deeply embedded in our culture," said Eric Bernheim, managing partner at FLB Law. "Not only do we hold quarterly days of service to support local organizations like Circle of Care, Bridgeport Rescue Mission, Gillespie House, Person to Person, and others, but we also serve on local and advisory boards including Housatonic Community College, MoCA CT, and The Norwalk Art Space.”

At the heart of the firm’s philanthropic efforts is Accelerate, FLB Law’s charitable program designed to support creative, purpose-aligned solutions for local nonprofit organizations and small businesses. Through Accelerate, the firm leverages its experience and networks to help propel community organizations forward.

 #          #          #

 About FLB Law, PLLC

Based in Westport, Conn., FLB Law, PLLC is a full-service law firm committed to delivering peace of mind to our clients. As recipients of industry accolades such as Chambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and AV ratings by Martindale-Hubbell, our attorneys primarily represent businesses and individuals throughout Fairfield County, while the Hospitality Practice helps national restaurant groups expand throughout the U.S. In addition to being committed to clients, FLB Law supports small businesses and nonprofits through its philanthropic program, Accelerate. For more information visit flb.law.