- Areas of Practice
- Significant Victories
- Publications & Presentations
Justin R. Kaufman joined the firm as a partner in 2018 and manages the firm’s New Mexico practice from Santa Fe. Justin serves as both trial and appellate counsel for people who have been harmed by corporations and individuals, and has extensive experience in complex litigation including catastrophic injury, toxic tort, product defect, pharmaceutical, consumer fraud, and medical negligence cases. He has tried numerous cases to verdict in New Mexico and in courts throughout the country, and has successfully settled numerous cases on behalf of individuals and families. Justin also has extensive experience with mass torts, having represented thousands of clients as well as state attorneys general in multi-district litigation.
Justin received his B.A. from Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences, and his J.D., cum laude, from Temple University School of Law, where he served as editor of the Temple Law Review. Justin also holds an M.B.A. from Temple University’s Fox School of Business.
Before entering private practice, Justin served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Herbert J. Hutton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kaufman is licensed to practice law in New Mexico, Texas, and New York.
Successfully defeating Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, re-affirming that a foreign corporation’s registration to do business in the state constitutes consent to New Mexico personal jurisdiction.
The Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico applied the “conservation” element of the state’s ground water permit statute, NMSA 72-12-3, to uphold the Office of the State Engineer’s denial of a major developer’s (Aquifer Science) application to withdraw ground water in the East Mountains near Albuquerque. In reviewing the application de novo, Judge Shannon Bacon not only agreed with the local landowners who protested the permit that withdrawing the proposed amount of water would significantly impair existing water rights with no feasible mitigation plan, but also concluded that the developer’s application was “contrary to conservation of water within the state,” in violation of NMSA 72-12-3’s requirements. In denying the application, the court rejected Aquifer Science’s claim that that its plan achieved “conservation” by building golf courses as a place to reuse wastewater and determined that Aquifer Science’s other plans to conserve water through efficient appliances, fixtures, and landscaping were “speculative.” The court also concluded that the developer’s failure to consider the impact of climate change on the supply of surface water—and, thus, ground water—when calculating water demand “suggests a lack of long-term planning regarding conservation.”