Anthony "Tony" Varda is a litigation attorney and has practiced at all court levels, from small claims court and arbitration to the U.S. Supreme Court. His practice emphasizes a wide range of activities but primarily focuses on commercial litigation.

Mr. Varda has litigated cases involving theft of computer data, building contract disputes, trade secrets, insurance coverage, and Wisconsin's truck, car and RV "Lemon Law." Most recently, he helped a couple whose motor home was determined to be a lemon, and received one of the largest Lemon Law verdicts of the year. In another matter, he secured two new replacement tow trucks and legal fees for a local towing company through settlement negotiations, again under the Lemon Law.

Some cases Mr. Varda has been involved in have become leading cases on points of commercial law; a few cases have been the focus of national attention. Perhaps most notable are the U.S. Supreme Court cases that resulted in uniform nationwide standards for commercial vehicle length.

When not driving his point home in court, Mr. Varda goes home to indulge his hobbies of carpentry and construction, which have been useful to him as an attorney. Both hobbies reinforce Mr. Varda's ability to evaluate and present complex construction and engineering disputes. He also is able to counsel and guide contractors to avoid costly litigation and promote prompt and advantageous settlement of disputes.

Mr. Varda also has served in community organizations, including the Madison Police Advisory Committee, the Maple Bluff Village Board, the Dane County Civil Service Commission, Town Chair for the Town of Berry, as well as acting as pro bono counsel for Madison's St. Vincent De Paul Society for the last 25 years. Mr. Varda's academic career included study abroad at the University of Oslo, Norway, as well as degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Mr. Varda has been involved in representing clients in the following types of matters:

• Raymond v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429 (1978) and Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, 450 U.S. 662 (1981); co-counsel on trial preparation and appellate submissions; both cases struck down state bans on 65-foot twin trailer trucks as an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
   
• Matter of Bilsie's Estate, 100 Wis. 2d 342, 302 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. App. 1981), lead counsel, responsible for all aspects of trial and appellate presentation; upheld constitutionality of Wis. Stat. 814.025, Wisconsin's Frivolous Action statute.
   
• Duir v. John Alden Life Insurance Co., 754 Fed. 2d 245 (1985), sole counsel for defendant, responsible for all aspects of trial presentation and appeal on issue of insurance company "bad faith."
   
• Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander, et al., 147 Wis. 2d 842, 434 N.W.2d 773 (1989), sole counsel for plaintiff, responsible for all aspects of trial and appeal; defined and interpreted Wisconsin's newly enacted Trade Secrets Act.
   
• Amplicon, Inc. v. Marshfield Clinic, 786 F. Supp. 1469 (WD Wis. 1992), sole counsel for plaintiff, obtained a million dollar summary judgment by using the contract merger clause to defeat claims of misrepresentation.
   
• Four Feathers Casino Joint Venture v. City of Hudson, (Wis. App. No. 99-0229), lead counsel for plaintiff Indian tribes suing the City of Hudson for breach of implied contractual covenants of good faith and fair dealing, for having opposed approval by the Department of Interior of an Indian casino at an existing Hudson dog track. Information compiled during discovery has led to two Congressional hearings and the appointment of an independent counsel to determine whether DOI's refusal to approve was corruptly influenced; obtained and collected $85,000 in discovery sanctions against recalcitrant witnesses.
   
• Milwaukee County v. Superior of Wisconsin, et al., 234 Wis. 2d 218, 610 N.W.2d 484 (Ct. App. 2000), lead counsel on trial and appeal of the companion case interpreting regulations determining the eligibility of certain recycled scrap for overweight hauling permits. The ruling superceded WisDOT interpretation and reversed an adverse trial court ruling that our client was ineligible for the permits in question.
   
• Baumeister v. Automated Products, Inc., 277 Wis.2d 21, 690 N.W.2d 1 (2004).  Sole counsel for Architect accused of failing to design construction bracing for truss erection on a large church, causing injury to construction workers when trusses collapsed during installation.  The case against the Architect was dismissed on summary judgment based on interpreting the limits of his responsibility under the AIA contract involved, the Administrative Code and common law.
   
• KBS Const., Inc. v. McCullough Plumbing, Inc.  2009 WL 4931573 (Wis.App., 2009) [unpublished]  counsel for plumbing company accused by general contractor of defective work on large condominium project.  Successfully defended against defect claims, and collected remaining amounts due on construction contract, after amending contract to again include $282,000, removed from the contract by change order, executed by mutual mistake.