ROBIN LAURIE, a Partner in the Montgomery office, is a member of the Energy Litigation Practice Group. His practice frequently includes the representation of businesses in all courts, state and federal, as well as advancing clients' interests before a wide array of state departments and agencies, including the following:

• Franchise Litigation - Mr. Laurie's franchise litigation experience has included representing franchisors in a wide array of issues including trademark infringement and dilution, as well as in vicarious liability matters.
• Telecommunications - For over 15 years, Mr. Laurie has represented telecommunication carriers in state and federal court in disputes with other carriers as well as in disputes with subscribers/customers. He frequently appears before the Alabama Public Service Commission ("APSC") on behalf of Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and Carriers' Carriers and other clients on issues ranging from certification proceedings to complex rate proceedings.
• Business Litigation - Mr. Laurie handles a wide array of businesses, including litigation involving enforcement and defense against non-competitive covenants, litigation arising from corporate "divorces", and the defense of fraud claims in individual and class action cases.

Some of Mr. Laurie's substantial experience includes:

• Representing a coalition local exchange carriers ("CLECs") before the APSC in a proceeding which will change those parties interconnection agreements with incumbant local exchange carriers in "change-of-law" proceedings emanating from recent FCC orders; representing CLECs in arbitration proceedings at the APSC against incumbent carriers that will result in arbitrated interconnection agreements.
• Representing the underwriters and their holding company parents in joint state-federal court litigation against the Retirement Systems of Alabama growing out of the collapse of WorldCom; am currently handling two cases in which non-competition contractual covenants are at issue.
• Representing four-five franchising companies in litigation ranging from vicarious litigation brought by dissatisfied customers/clients of the franchisees and in trademark litigation against franchisees or former franchisees under the Lanham Trademark Act.