ATTORNEY INTERVIEW
10 minutes with…
John Ethridge Partner in SGR’s Corporate and M&A Practice, Atlanta
John has more than 25 years’ experience advising clients across a wide variety of business transactions, including acquisitions and divestitures, joint ventures, venture capital, private equity, lease financing, commercial lending, public offerings and private placements of debt and equity securities. What do you like most about being an attorney? I like the interface with clients. I enjoy interacting with people. As a corporate attorney, I am typically the one who has the privilege of referring my clients to other attorneys within SGR to solve their problems. Tell me about the most interesting deal/client you’ve handled. While not the biggest deal or most complex on which I have worked, one comes to mind. We had a client who was attempting to roll up many higher-end auction houses under one umbrella. We ended up closing the deal in a glass room while a live auction was conducted outside with a television crew filming. As we were finalizing documents, people were strolling by the glass walls holding food and drink. It was like being in a fish tank. The best career advice you have received? Mr. Gambrell used to say, “A lawyer who can’t be found is a lawyer not worth finding.” Make yourself available to your clients. I try to live by that rule to ensure my clients know that when they have a need, we will be there to help. What advice would you give a young attorney? Stay calm, listen carefully, think before you speak and make sure when you do speak that your advice is relevant and practical. Also, keep your professional life in perspective. When you finish the race and look back, will you be able to identify how you made a difference?
What do you do when you are not working? I enjoy volunteer work. I also love working in my yard when I am not in the office. I love animals and have several pets. We keep bees as well. Are there any special causes or organizations that are important to you? My wife Cindy and I are committed to a number of causes and serve on many boards for organizations that are related to our schools, church and nonprofit community. We have particular interest in nonprofits that help the underserved. I personally devote a lot of time to Wesley Woods, which operates senior living facilities that provide affordable housing to people with limited resources. I am passionate about Murphy Harpst Children’s Center, which provides housing, therapy and hope to some of Georgia’s most severely neglected and abused children. Cindy is also active with Habitat for Humanity and City of Refuge. What is the last great book you’ve read? In light of the country’s current tense political climate, I recently re-read Unbroken, the true story of Louis Zamperini. I am moved by his story and was looking for some perspective and inspiration. Mr. Zamperini faced many challenges in his life, but throughout it all, he maintained a focus on living. What have you enjoyed most about working at SGR? I have grown up at SGR. I came here when I graduated from law school and have never looked back. I am proud of the work we do and the services we offer. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with some very talented people. However, I also like the firm culture. The firm was much smaller when I arrived, but it always feels like family.
LITIGATION SUCCESSES
Dismissal in Heroes, Inc. trademark infringement action
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted SGR client Heroes, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a trademark infringement action brought pursuant to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Heroes, Inc. is a D.C.-based charitable organization that has provided support to the families of fallen law enforcement officers and firefighters in the D.C. metropolitan area for over 50 years. It owns multiple federal registrations for its name and mark HEROES. Heroes, Inc. was represented by SGR attorneys Jim Bikoff, Bruce McDonald and Holly Lance. The court found that plaintiff The Hogs and Heroes Foundation’s (HHF) allegations regarding “threatening” statements made in the course of settlement discussions, a pending dispute before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and Heroes’ litigation history were insufficient to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Applying the MedImmune standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, the court found that HHF had not presented a dispute that was “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” This decision appears to be the first of its kind in the District of Maryland.
TRUST THE LEADERS | Winter 2017 | SGRLAW.com
07