The business of law is to make sense of the confusion of what we call human life–to reduce it to order but at the same time to give it possibility, scope, even dignity.

DAVID'S INDIAN LAW BACKGROUND

I have practiced in Indian Country for more than a decade, representing Indian tribes, their tribal governments and business entities, as well as individual tribal members and other parties with interests in Indian law matters.

During this time, I have successfully represented tribal interests against those asserted by federal, state and local governments. My extensive work with tribes includes, among other things, the coordination of tribal projects involving the resolution of environmental and zoning issues raised by state and county officials to enable construction and operation of a tribally owned fishing resort; the establishment of a tribally owned funeral home, and the consolidation of tribally owned real estate parcels for loan purposes. I have served as counsel to tribal governments and tribal business entities in a wide variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, land use planning and development; business development; taxation; legislative affairs, contracts for goods and services; tribal regulation; the drafting of tribal resolutions, codes and ordinances; constitutional issues; tribal elections; secretarial elections; tribal membership criteria and employment disputes.

I have also represented numerous Indian individuals in matters arising off-reservation, in the urban setting.

My general litigation experience includes federal, state and tribal courts, as well as administrative forums.

Selected Experience:

In the Matter of the Arbitration between United Construction & Supply, Inc. and Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 65 E 110 00322 03 (American Arbitration Association Construction Industry Arbitration Panel 2003).: A dispute arose concerning two contracts the parties had entered into for construction of a community water supply and pressure system for a tribal housing development, and for construction of gravel surfaced access roads. When work stalled after a series of payments had been made for work completed at that juncture, the Tribe provided notice to the construction company that it was terminating both contracts for default. The company filed for arbitration, claiming it was entitled to additional compensation exceeding $50,000, and the Tribe counterclaimed. The Arbitrator converted the terminations of both contracts to terminations for convenience and held that the construction company was entitled to recover a total of only $3,920 against the two contracts, with arbitration costs to be shared equally by the parties.
Appeal of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians—Bureau of Indian Affairs Grant No. GTF 55XX0097, IBCA 4102-1999, IBCA 4103-1999, IBCA 4104-1999 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior/Interior Board of Contract Appeals 2000).: Following audit by the Office of the Inspector General, the Bureau of Indian Affairs requested the Tribe to pay back approximately $357,000 of grant funds originally allocated for the Tribe's school project. The Arbitrator determined that the Tribe only had to pay back approximately $13,000.

While serving as co-counsel throughout the matter, I prepared the Tribe's arbitration brief and all other written submissions to the court.
Linda LaFromboise v. Tommy G. Thompson, No. A4-00-030 (N.W.D. ND 2001): Served as co-counsel in workplace discrimination case. My briefs to the Magistrate Judge and District Court resulted in the court's determination that both Title VII and the Indian Preference Act were violated, subsequent to which we negotiated gratifying settlement terms for our client.
Presented to Indian Law Section at the 2002 Wisconsin State Bar Conference regarding the following litigation:: Thomas v. U.S., 189 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. den sub nom. Tribal Governing Bd. Of Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Thomas, 531 U.S. 811, 121 S. Ct. 33 (Mem.), 148 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000).
      Thomas v U.S (Intervention),2001 WL 34373162 (W.D. Wis., 2001).
      Thomas v. U.S.,141 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (W.D. Wis. 2001)
      (Secretarial election).
David Garelick, 29 WM.MITCHELL L. REV. (2003) (reviewing THOMAS BIOLSI, DEADLIEST ENEMIES: LAW AND THE MAKING OF RACE RELATIONS ON AND OFF THE ROSEBUD RESERVATION (2001)). Please click here to read David's article published in the William Mitchell Law Review.