slide
menu
slide
News: Navy Senior Officers Vote 3-0 to Retain C&J Client Lt. David Nartker
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, a three member separation panel for the United States Navy voted unanimously to retain C&J client Lieutenant David Nartker, rejecting recommendations from commanders to discharge Lt. Nartker from the Navy.  Lt. Nartker had been under investigation by the Navy following an incident in January 2016 when he and ten other sailors under his command, who were transiting over 260 miles through the Persian Gulf, unknowingly strayed into Iranian waters.  Following an investigation, the Navy sought to take certain steps to punish Lt. Nartker, including criminal punishment, as well as discharge from the Navy.  Lt. Nartker's counsel, led by C&J attorney Phillip E. Lowry, demanded court martial rather than to allow the criminal charges against Lt. Nartker to proceed.  In response, the Navy amended its charges against Lt. Nartker, and Lt. Nartker agreed to proceed to nonjudicial punishment on three of the original 12 charges against him.  

The punishment imposed on Lt. Nartker set the scene for a two-day hearing in front of a three-officer separation panel in San Diego, California to determine whether Lt. Nartker would be allowed to remain in the Navy.  At the hearing, Lt. Nartker was represented by Mr. Lowry, Navy counsel Lt. Allan Thorson, and C&J associate Bryson Brown.  Following the two-day hearing, where the three-officer panel focused mostly on the 780-page report the Navy had prepared, the three-officer panel voted 3-0 to retain Lt. Nartker.

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Mr. Lowry said, "It’s an exoneration by the rank and file of the Navy.  His peers have looked at this, and they have decided that this doesn't warrant separation, they want to keep him as a colleague."  When asked about Lt. Nartker's future, Mr. Lowry told the Navy Times that, "We don’t know how he’ll be reassigned or when — the Navy personnel machine has to figure that out — but essentially the flag will be removed and he’ll continue on with his career."

To read more about Lt. Nartker's story, as well as the tremendous efforts set forth by C&J attorneys Phil Lowry and Bryson Brown, read here and here.
More news stories:
Congratulation to Phil Ferguson for being awarded the Charlotte Miller Outstanding Mentor Award at the Utah State Bar Fall Forum
Congratulation to Phil Ferguson for being awarded the Charlotte Miller Outstanding Mentor Award at the Utah State Bar Fall Forum.
read more...
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer presented during a plenary session of the Utah State Bar’s Spring Convention
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer presented during a plenary session of the Utah State Bar’s Spring Convention on March 17, 2022. She was joined in her presentation by Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen, University of Utah Professor Anna Carpenter, prominent Utah solo practitioner Virginia Sudbury, and moderator Michelle Oldroyd. The topic was “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution and the Rule of Law in Times of Change.” Sarah was honored to speak alongside such prominent members of Utah’s legal community.
read more...
Christensen & Jensen is a longstanding member of ALFA International
Christensen & Jensen is a longstanding member of ALFA International, a preeminent, global network of law firms and attorneys. Sarah Elizabeth Spencer will be speaking at the ALFA International Product Liability and Complex Torts Seminar on June 2, 2022, in San Diego, California. Sarah will be speaking on the main stage during the “hot topics” presentation. Sarah will be speaking about cutting-edge trends in spoliation of evidence.
read more...
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Anna P. Christiansen won a motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged sale of contaminated diesel fuel
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Anna P. Christiansen won a motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged sale of contaminated diesel fuel by their client’s gas station. Sarah and Anna successfully demonstrated why their client was not liable for the plaintiff’s negligence or breach of contract claims, arguing there was no evidence their client sold contaminated fuel. The court agreed. The court found that the claims were factually and legally unsupported and dismissed them in total.
read more...
0.08