Tom, formerly a litigation partner in the Cleveland offices of Baker Hostetler and Ulmer & Berne, has more than 25 years of litigation experience with a concentration in business litigation.
Tom has spent his career cooperating with other members of a team to develop and achieve solutions for complex business disputes.
These disputes have spanned a wide and diverse field of substantive law, and have included employment and product liability matters, environmental cases, antitrust matters, class actions, intellectual property matters, contract disputes, and a host of others, in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Tom brings particular strength and experience to complex business litigation, and has first and second chair trial experience. He also argues state and federal appeals.
Tom has achieved the highest rating, AV Preeminent, from Martindale-Hubbell, and has been named as one of Cleveland's Top Rated Lawyers by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
|Award name||Grantor||Date Granted|
|AV Preeminent 5.0 out of 5 Peer Review Rated||Martindale-Hubbell||2017|
|Of Counsel||The Calkins Law Firm, Ltd.||2017 - Present|
|Owner||Anastos Law LLC||2016 - Present|
|Partner||Ulmer & Berne||2005 - 2015|
|Assistant Director of Law||City Of Cleveland||2002 - 2005|
|Partner||Baker & Hostetler||1989 - 2002|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association||Member||1989 - Present|
|Portfolio Media (Law360)||Sixth Circ. Solidifies Product Configuration Trade Dress Law||2013|
|Harvard University Law School||JD - Juris Doctor||1989|
|Yale University||PhD - Doctorate||1986|
|Case Western Reserve University||BA - Bachelor of Arts||1981|
|31st Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference||Litigating Trade Dress and Functionality Cases||2016|
|Judicial Conference of the Eighth Judicial District||Recent Trends in ESI Discovery||2015|
|Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Int’l, Inc., 730 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2013)||Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of client.|
|Metz v. Unizan Bank, 649 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011)||Some clients dismissed, summary judgment granted on some claims, and jury verdict in favor of client on remaining claim|
|Cleveland Constr. Inc. v. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 2011-Ohio-1237 (8th Dist. 2011)||Summary judgment in favor of client.|
|Fornshell v. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 2009-Ohio-2728 (8th Dist. 2009)||Summary judgment in favor of client.|
|State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co. v. City of Cleveland, 106 Ohio St. 3d 70 (2005)||Judgment in favor of client in mandamus action.|
Endorsements from fellow lawyers are an important consideration for many when selecting the right attorney. Be the first to endorse your colleague!