|
|
Address
119 Neale Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (Pitkin Co.)
Average Client Review Rating
Rating not available
Average Peer Review Rating
5.0
out of 5
 Free Initial Consultation For the past twenty-eight years the majority of Bill Cohan's practice has been devoted to defending federal criminal tax cases, conspiracies to defraud the United States, money laundering and related criminal charges, including searches and seizures, forfeitures, grand jury proceedings and summons enforcement litigation. Thus far in his career he has achieved dismissals or acquittals of all or substantially all charges in 52 of 85 cases. He has obtained reversals on appeal in 8 criminal cases and 8 civil actions. He has also persuaded the government not to file criminal charges against at least 19 clients. On the civil side, he has litigated more than a dozen complex cases to multimillion dollar settlements or verdicts. In addition to these accomplishments, he has had more than 50 reported decisions. During the last fifteen years Mr. Cohan has prosecuted several civil rights actions against state and federal law enforcement officers for violating his clients' clearly established legal rights, resulting in stripping the officers of immunity, most recently October 4, 2004. We have relationships with outstanding lawyers in Boston, MA; Honolulu, HI; Denver, CO; Phoenix and Tucson, AZ; Richmond, VA; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; and Seattle, WA to assist with technical tax, scientific and regulatory controversies. He is a member of the American Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, and Life-Member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Statement of PracticeComplex Civil and Criminal Litigation. Firm Size: 1
Rate InformationFree Initial Consultation
William A. Cohan (Member) born Palo Alto, California, March 16, 1947; admitted to bar, 1976, Colorado; 1977, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit; 1979, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit; 1980, U.S. Tax Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 1983, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; 1987, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; 1988, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit and U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; 1989, California. Education: Stanford University (B.A., 1970); University of Washington (J.D., 1976). Founder, China Investment Forum, 2003, doing business in U.S. and China. Member: State Bar of California. Reported Cases: U.S. v. Ellis, 496 F. Supp. 76 (D.Kan. 1980); Grandbouche v. Adams, 529 F.Supp. 545 (D.Colo. 1982); In re First National Bank of Englewood, 701 F.2d 115 (CA10, 1983); Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402 (CA10, 1985); U.S. v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758 (CA9, 1986); U.S. v. Hayes, 861 F.2d 1225 (CA10, 1988); U.S. v. Kilpatrick, 726 F.Supp. 789 (D.Colo. 1989); Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787 (CA10, 1989); NCBA v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240 (CA10, 1989); U.S. v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (CA6, 1989); U.S. v. Nordbrock, 734 F. Supp. 908 (D.Ariz. 1990); U.S. v. Nordbrock, 941 F.2d 947 (CA9, 1991); U.S. v. Sinigaglio, 925 F.2d 339 (CA9, 1991), amended 942 F.2d 581 (CA9 1991); NCBA v. Gibbs, 790 F.Supp. 233 (D.Colo. 1991); U.S. v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054 (CA9, 1993); U.S. v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 (CA9, 1993); U.S. v. Engstrom, 7 F.3d 1423 (CA9, 1993); U.S. v. Green, 12 F.3d 1109 (CA9, 1993); U.S. v. Engstrom, 16 F.3d 1006 (CA9, 1994); In re William A. Cohan, 16 F.3d 1006 (CA9, 1994); National Commodity and Barter Association v. Archor, 31 F.3d 1521 (CA10, 1994); U.S. v. Beals, 82 F.3d 1521 (CA10, 1996); U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (CA9, 1998); U.S. v. Lindberg, 220 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2000); Andersen v. USA, 298 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2003). Languages: German, French and Spanish. Practice Areas: Complex Litigation; Criminal Taxation; White Collar Criminal Defense.Email: William A. Cohan
Ratings Methodology
The following firm members have been rated by their peersDisclaimer: No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Any result that the endorsed lawyer or law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients. Past success cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Martindale-Hubbell® does not undertake to develop a Client Review Rating or Peer Review Rating for all firms and/or lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed as unfavorable. Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for and will not be liable for the content and accuracy of the individual Reviews and the aggregated Reviews.
|