Our Principal, Mr. Heitman, has extensive experience with both the law and construction. He is both a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, as well as a Certified Construction Attorney. This puts him in the unique position to lead on both the jobsite, courtroom, and boardroom.

Much like you on your jobsite, we do everything to legal code and correct the first time. We will be straightforward with you about your case and inform you on all your options. We will not cut corners, paying careful attention to every aspect of your case, from the contracts to the construction disputes. Also like you, we think that no project is too big or too small to be given our utmost attention. We want to make you, your project, and your company is given thorough legal representation.

Heitman Law Firm serves it's clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal,technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.

Heitman Law Firm has the technical knowledge to understand the issues you face and the legal acumen to address these issues. With construction law, the cases are often multi-faceted and multidisciplinary. We are well versed in construction, business, and law, resulting in attorneys that are up to speed. You need to spend your time teaching us about construction, because we are already familiar. Instead of getting caught up in jargon, we are able to keep up to speed with both your construction issues and the current laws. This keeps us ahead of the curve and far ahead other attorneys in Palm Beach.

A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.

The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.

BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.

Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.

Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.

Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.

Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties.

"Today the Oklahoma Supreme Court handed the women of Oklahoma a crucial victory by protecting their constitutional rights and restoring critical options for those seeking safe and legal abortion services," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is supporting efforts to fight the laws.

"Time and time again, courts are seeing that the true motive behind these underhanded and baseless restrictions is to push essential reproductive health care services out of reach for as many women as possible," she said.

A message seeking comment from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was not immediately returned. A spokesman for Gov. Mary Fallin said the governor was on the road on Election Day and was unsure if she could be reached for comment.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in October on behalf of an Oklahoma doctor who performs nearly half the state's abortions, seeking to block the law requiring admitting privileges law.

The physician, Dr. Larry Burns, said he had applied for admitting privileges at 16 nearby hospitals but had yet to get approval from any facility.

When Burns filed his lawsuit in October, Fallin — who signed the legislation into law in May— said she believed abortion was wrong and that she had been "proud to work with lawmakers in both parties to support legislation that protects the health and lives of both mothers and their unborn children."

A conservative gadfly lawyer who has made a career of skewering Democratic administrations is taking his battle against the National Security Agency's telephone surveillance program to a federal appeals court.

Activist attorney Larry Klayman won the first round in December, when U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a Republican appointee, ruled that the NSA's surveillance program likely runs afoul of the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. The government appealed.

In court filings in preparation for Tuesday's argument, the Justice Department told three Republican-nominated appeals judges that collecting the phone data is of overriding and compelling importance to the nation's security.

Former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden revealed the phone data collection effort a year and a half ago, triggering a debate over privacy rights and surveillance.

In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit recently heard arguments in an appeal of a judge's opinion that found the surveillance program legal.

The three appeals judges in the Washington case have generally come down on the government's side on national security issues.

Here at the Law Offices of Robert W. Jackson, APC, we are expert trial Lawyers with the ability to present and prepare your case professionally. This professionalism with prevent you and your attorney from being bullied by insurance companies.

Our objective is to secure fair compensation for your injuries, no
matter where that takes place. As trial lawyers, we are not scared to
go to court, and we will not convince you to take a small settlement
out of fear of a trial. We are unafraid of the insurance companies,
and we will fight till the end to get you what you deserve. Other
lawyers aim to get a settlement, and if that doesn't work they are
scared to go to trial. Often times, such attorneys will refer you to
experienced trial lawyers like us.

We at the Law Offices of Robert W. Jackson, APC understand that you
are going through a difficult time with your injury or auto accident.
The physical, financial, and emotional toll it takes on you can be
overwhelming. It is our goal to ease your burdens and help facilitate
resolution with insurance companies, opposing lawyers, medical
facilities, and government agencies. Conveniently located in Fallbrook
and Cardiff, California, we are poised to represent those throughout
San Diego County.

If you do not take the proper steps immediately, your claim for an
injury may be seriously degraded. Seek medical treatment for your
injuries and pain immediately, and then call us for a consultation.