Practice Overview

Hope Zimlich Miranda’s current practice is focused on premises liability, personal injury and nonsubscriber litigation. She also represents small businesses in a broad range of contractual and commercial disputes. However, Hope has litigated on behalf of clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, subrogation, and investment fraud matters in over 10 states nationwide. Prior to beginning defense work, Hope spent four years working at a boutique Plaintiff’s firm. There, she focused primarily on representing small to mid-sized business owners who had been defrauded as a result of elaborate investment schemes predicated on the purported tax-deductibility of contributions made to various employer welfare benefit plans, marketed as valid and IRS- approved under IRC §419A(f)(6), IRC §419e, IRC §412i, IRC §79 and IRC §83. Hope’s vast and versatile experience on both sides of the aisle provide her with an exceptional ability to anticipate the arguments and strategy of the opposing party as well as accurately calculate the party’s expectations. It also allows Hope to set realistic expectations for her clients, fighting the cases that warrant it without expending unnecessary fees and expenses on those cases that are better suited for an alternative resolution strategy.  

In addition to obtaining her Juris Doctor, Hope also obtained a Master of Business Administration from Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business. As a result, she brings a unique perspective to her clients as both legal practitioner and business advisor. Her versatile skillset allows her to understand complex legal and regulatory issues and, subsequently, assist in implementing an effective and strategic solution. 

Hope has successfully obtained summary judgments in several breach of contract and premises liability cases. In addition, she handled all aspects of litigation up until trial in an investment fraud case in which her client was awarded over $1.5 million in damages by a Texas jury, and assisted in successfully appealing the dismissal of her client’s fraud claims in an Indiana case. She has also been successful in arguing the strengths of her premises liability case to persuade the plaintiffs to nonsuit their claims against her client with prejudice on numerous occasions.