Sullivan & Brill, LLP is a New York City based litigation firm specializing in the representation of individuals injured in accidents and individuals and corporations accused of criminal offenses. The firm was founded by Joseph Sullivan and Steven Brill based upon the principal that every individual deserves to have representation equal to that of corporations, insurance companies, governments and law enforcement. In every representation the firm undertakes, it is committed to leveling the playing field between common people and the power and wealth of the government, law enforcement, corporations and insurance companies.
After graduating Cum Laude from Temple University School of Law, Joseph Sullivan started his legal career defending insurance companies and corporations. He gained valuable trial experience and saw first hand how individuals could be outgunned in such litigation. In 2001, he left his former partners and began focusing on representing individuals who where injured due to the negligent and intentional acts of others. His experience representing insurance companies and corporations has given him a unique understanding of how the opposition thinks and enables him to maximize settlements and verdicts for the firm's injured clients. He has obtained numerous significant settlements for clients injured in automobile accidents, construction accidents, scaffolding accidents, fall down accidents, sexual assaults as well as those that have been injured due to medical malpractice, defective products, animal bites and violations of the liquor law.
In 2001, when Joseph Sullivan was refocusing his practice, Steven Brill had been defending clients accused of criminal offenses since graduating from Temple University School of Law in 1994. His commitment to defend an accused from the extraordinary power of the State and Federal government made him a natural ally. He had exceptional experience handling serious felony cases, including sex offenses, robbery, gun and weapon charges, drug charges, conspiracy, kidnapping, homicide, and white collar offenses, as well as misdemeanor cases involving DWI/DUI, prostitution, domestic violence, assault, and shoplifting. Since founding the firm, Steven Brill has continued to defend the accused in federal cases in all Federal District Courts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington DC and Miami. Most of these cases have involved charges of international drug conspiracies, 924 (guns and weapons) cases, securities fraud, RICO matters, public corruption, health care fraud, computer crimes, child pornography, and Hobbs Act robberies.
Steven Brill has also been involved in several notable cases, including United States of America v. Abdinur Dahir, where Sullivan & Brill's client was charged with money laundering in an international drug conspiracy involving the drug "Khat;" People of the State of New York v. Brandon Connelly, where an Iraqi veteran, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was charged with Vehicular Manslaughter and DWI following a fatal accident; People of the State of New York v. Judith Smiley a high-profile kidnapping case involving the biological and adoptive parents of a baby boy; People of the State of New York v. Martha Yates, a case where a mother was charged with recklessly endangering her foster children by allowing her son to keep a tiger and an alligator in her house; People of the State of New York v. Jane Doe, involving an attorney who was accused of soliciting potential investors for an allegedly fraudulent foreign currency fund; United States of America v. Julio Vasquez, a case involving an NYPD Detective who was charged with Federal drug conspiracy and corruption in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY); and United States of America v. Angelje Sherpa, where a Napalese National was wrongfully identified as a drug lord leading to a dismissal and the granting of political asylum by the U.S Attorneys Office in Washington D.C.
Sullivan & Brill, LLP also maintains an office in San Juan, Puerto Rico, where Rachel Brill, of counsel to the firm, represents the firm's individual and corporate clients who have been charged with serious federal offenses, including white collar crimes and drug conspiracies. Rachel Brill graduated Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and Magna Cum Laude from the University of Pennsylvania. Before going into private practice, Rachel Brill clerked for Federal District Court Judges Jose A. Fuste from the District of Puerto Rico and Frank A. Kaufman from the District of Maryland. In addition to representing clients at the investigation and trial court stages, Rachel Brill handles the firm's federal appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court and Writs of Habeas Corpus under 22 U.S.C. 2254 and 2255. Rachel has successfully argued and briefed numerous appeals and has become one of this country's leading attorneys in cases involving post-conviction relief and all other sentencing proceedings like those regarding the case of United States v. Booker and the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Rachel Brill has been involved in many notable cases, including: United States of America v. Udechukwu, where drug distribution and importation convictions reversed based upon government's improper closing argument in conjunction with its failure to turn over exculpatory evidence; United States v. Aguilar-Aranceta, where drug distribution conviction reversed following government's improper use of prior bad acts evidence; United States v. Rivera-Santiago & Alamo-Silva, where drug distribution and importation convictions reversed because of judge's improper response to jury question during deliberation; United States v. Rivera, where Rachel secured a reversal following first known prosecution under 46 U.S.C. 10908, for knowingly sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea in a state that is likely to endanger life of an individual; en banc appellate court found government's proof following oil spill to be insufficient; United States v. Acosta-Colon, that involved a de facto arrest by agents without probable cause required suppression of controlled substances; case dismissed upon remand; United States v. Rosario-Diaz & Montalvo-Ortiz , involving a carjacking conviction reversed because of government's failure to prove foreknowledge with particularity; and United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, a matter remanded for re-sentencing following district court's failure to adequately consider amount of loss that was "foreseeable" to the defendant.
Rachel Brill is fluent in Spanish and is a frequent lecturer on Federal Trial and Appellate Advocacy and has been an adjunct Professor of Federal Trail Advocacy at the University of Puerto Rico Law School.