Thomas Galvin is a partner at Rose Law Group and his legal career has been spent fighting for and on behalf of homeowners, property owners, farmers, and small business owners. His legal practice focuses on land use, real estate, and water law. Thomas has represented families, homeowners, and small businesses who have been affected by government regulations, burdensome bureaucracy, and onerous property taxes.
At Rose Law Group, Thomas has advised a professional sports team on the successful public approval of an extended lease for a multi-purpose sports arena; represented developers and business owners in successful applications to zoning boards and city councils throughout the Valley; secured variances and use permits for residential and commercial projects throughout Arizona; represented clients before the Arizona State House, State Senate, and various administrative agencies and boards; drafted legislation which was signed into law; coordinated and mobilized a successful grassroots effort of thousands of residents of a city to prevent the approval and development of a proposed use that was incompatible for the area; has been interviewed on various local televisions news programs and has had op-eds published in local newspapers.
Previously, Thomas was the Policy Advisor to Republican Brenda Burns at the Arizona Corporation Commission. The Commission regulates public utilities, securities registration and licensing, incorporation of businesses, railroad/pipeline safety and oversees the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee. Serving in a chief-of-staff role, for one of five statewide elected officials at the Commission, Thomas worked on a variety of matters, most notably energy (renewable energy, natural gas, nuclear, coal, sustainability, water issues, and energy efficiency).
Prior to state service, Thomas was at CB Richard Ellis, the world’s largest commercial real estate services company. At CBRE, Thomas was a member of the Labor Analytics Group (LAG) which is a consulting team with a national scope and has many clients in the Fortune 100. At LAG, Thomas helped clients with labor market intelligence and economic development incentives in addition to their commercial real estate needs.
Before that, Thomas was involved in real estate development. He has worked on the construction management of a Class-A commercial facility and was involved in evaluating potential acquisitions, including underwriting cash flows and assessing risks and opportunities.
In his free time, he likes to spend time with his family, and loves exploring the beautiful state of Arizona.
Thomas received his A.B. in History from the College of the Holy Cross (Worcester, MA) and his J.D. from the University of Notre Dame.
In The News
Tom Galvin, attorney at Rose Law Group, on ‘fascinating’ eminent domain case before U.S. Supreme Court
By Ilya Somin | Reason A number of people have asked me what I think about PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, an important eminent domain case that was considered by the Supreme Court earlier this week. Normally, when an issue involving eminent domain reaches the Supreme Court, I’m all over it, writing analyses and often filing an amicus brief.
Gov. Ducey signs money transmitter bill deregulating gift card sales; Rose Law Group attorney Tom Galvin breaks it down
(Disclosure: Rose Law Group represents Blackhawk Network.) By Thomas Galvin, Rose Law Group Attorney | Rose Law Group Reporter Governor Ducey just signed HB 2508, which passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate chambers of the state legislature. Arizona HB 2508, which was sponsored and championed by Representative Shawnna Bolick, makes several substantive changes to the current Arizona money transmitter licensing (MTL) law
Supreme Court highlights ‘problematic issues’ with Proposition 208, says Rose Law Group attorney Tom Galvin
(Disclosure: Rose Law Group represents Ann Siner of My Sister’s Closet and Judge John Buttrick in their litigation efforts against 208.) “The Supreme Court justices wisely focused on the problematic issues with the way Prop 208 was drafted. Once again, we’ve always stated that the issue before the courts is not whether there should be more school funding but whether Prop 208 is constitutional. At today’s