Since 1964, members of the firm have represented Indian tribes and organizations. Approximately 90 percent of the firm members' time is spent advising and representing Indian tribes, Alaska Native organizations and entities and their businesses. This representation has encompassed, in depth, virtually the entire spectrum of significant Indian and Native legal issues. Members of the firm have performed legal services for over 30 Indian tribes, Native organizations, corporations, business enterprises, and related organizations in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, New York, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington State and Washington, D.C.

Attorneys in the firm are experienced in a wide range of legal matters on behalf of Indian tribes covering all aspects of tribal legal issues, including treaty rights and interests, protection of tribal sovereignty, tribal state and federal jurisdiction within Indian country, environmental law, natural resource protection and development, economic development, trust responsibility, legislation, federal administrative law and practice, and other related matters. Members of the firm have extensive experience in litigation on behalf of Indian tribes, primarily in federal court, including the federal district courts for the Districts of Washington, Michigan, California, Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas and the District of Columbia, the federal courts of appeal for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the Court of Federal Claims, United States Tax Court, and five times before the United States Supreme Court. Lawyers in the firm also litigate Indian issues extensively before the trial and appellate courts of various states throughout the United States and before various tribal courts. Members of the firm do not represent non-Indian interests that may conflict with tribal or Native interests.

Attorneys in the firm are admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal, Second, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits; Federal District Courts of Arizona, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia; the United States Tax Court; the United States Court of Federal Claims; the Interior Board of Indian Appeals; and the courts of the States of Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Members of the firm have been admitted pro hac vice to numerous state and federal courts on a case-by-case basis. Members have also been admitted to various tribal courts.

Attorneys in the firm are experienced at representing Indian businesses. Business, corporate, commercial and economic representation involves negotiations, consultations and appearances on behalf of clients with state, local and federal governmental agencies, international organizations and private developers, industrialists and financiers. In addition to being familiar with the specialized aspects of representing Indian businesses, members of the firm are also familiar with the full array of corporate legal work necessary to service business corporations, including drafting commercial and business documents and contracts, including joint venture agreements, contracts for services or consulting (including architects' and engineers' contracts), interim financing documents, leases and related documents, and grant and aid applications. Members of the firm have developed a number of programs to address the concerns of Indian businesses, including::

Attorneys in the firm have developed expertise in the important area of Indian and Native preference in obtaining governmental and other contracts, subcontracts, and employment opportunities. We have assisted clients in gaining SBA minority small business classifications and in benefitting from the preferences available under the Indian Self-Determination Act and other federal and state legislation. In addition, we have assisted in implementation of client employment preference ordinances and regulations and gaining preferences in local private business projects.

Attorneys in the firm have participated as legal advisor and consultant to tribal public works projects, including HUD financed housing projects, public docks, community centers and museums. In addition, members of the firm have served as legal advisors and consultants for various commercial development projects, such as timber land development and improvement, construction enterprises, telecommunications and other tribal economic development initiatives.

In the area of Indian and Native employment preference, members of the firm have successfully fought for the recognition of tribal employment rights ordinances and offices by industry and labor in projects on and near reservations. In particular, members of the firm have assisted tribes and Native organizations in developing their positions as local governments and in preparing them to perform governmental services so as to preempt state jurisdiction.

Much of the firm's work involves marketing of natural resources, including the development of tribal enterprises, joint venture agreements, and related commercial regulation codes and procedures. This work includes consultation and litigation involving jurisdiction over land, water, and other natural resources and the control, use, and commercial development thereof.

In recent years, members of the firm have developed a number of tribal codes governing business activities, such as tribal commercial codes (based on the Uniform Commercial Code), business licensing codes, business manuals. Members of the firm have also developed tribal codes for tribal employment rights, taxation, tax codes, utilities regulation, zoning and land use regulation, water use, law and order, and tribal court procedure

(1) Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn. (the Boldt decision). After ten years of litigation the Supreme Court held that a number of Washington tribes were entitled to 50% of all harvestable fish outside the reservation and that they could exercise tribal sovereignty in regulating that fishing. The case is of great economic benefit to the tribes and is important as a recognition of their sovereignty and governmental powers.

(2) Washington v. Antoine. This case established that a Colville tribal agreement with the United States in 1891 reserving hunting and fishing rights on ceded land is still valid and the supreme law of the land. The state was denied regulatory authority over tribal hunting and fishing. The tribe's right to regulate was upheld. This is also an important decision for tribal sovereignty and self-government.

(3) Tonasket v. Washington. The Supreme Court vacated a Washington State Supreme Court decision which had allowed the State to tax cigarette sales on the Colville Reservation. By so doing, the Court opened the way for continued tax-free cigarette sales which served as important profit-making and tax sources to the tribes until Colville, Lummi and Makah Tribes v. Washington (see below) in 1980.

(4) Colville, Lummi and Makah Tribes v. Washington. This suit involved state taxation of cigarette sales on-reservation. The Supreme Court reversed a decision of a three-judge federal court that a comprehensive tribal taxation program may preempt the imposition of state taxes, even as to sales to non-Indians. This decision allows state taxation of cigarettes sales to non-Indians and culminated ten years of litigation in which the tribes, up to the Supreme Court level, had been successful. However, the Supreme Court confirmed that, as an incident of sovereignty, tribes have power to tax non-Indians on the reservation, that the State could not impose motor vehicle excise taxes on Indian-owned vehicles used on the reservation, and that tribal taxes could preempt state taxes in certain circumstances.

(5) Arizona v. California. The Supreme Court held that tribal water rights were not lost in settlement of land claim for portion of Tribe's reservation, rejecting the Special Master's recommendation.