{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"112","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442768,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5372,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"melvin-bailey","email":"mbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Mel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Melvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1896,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mel-bailey-10aa2033/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6358}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Dallas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas D Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Mel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.\nMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation. Partner Super Lawyer Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018) Texas Lawyer Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018) Best Lawyers in Dallas Dallas D Magazine Best Lawyers in America 2017-2018 International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy 2017 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Member, International Association of Defense Counsel Fellow, Litigation of Trial Counsel Member, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society Former Member, American Board Trial Advocates Member, Diversity Law Institute Member, Trial Law Institute Inactive  Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IADC Trial Academy Faculty, Stanford University","searchable_name":"Melvin D. Bailey (Mel)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427654,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1263,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-blaschke","email":"mblaschke@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":107}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Blaschke","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":731}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Blaschke{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.{{ FIELD }}Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.{{ FIELD }}Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.{{ FIELD }}Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.{{ FIELD }}Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.{{ FIELD }}Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.{{ FIELD }}Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.{{ FIELD }}Matt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.\nMatt’s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Matthew J Blaschke Partner Notre Dame  George Washington University George Washington University Law School U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California. Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery. Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects. Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage. Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility. Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow. Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems. Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk. Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel. Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.","searchable_name":"Matthew J. Blaschke (Matt)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427629,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1020,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-bucholtz","email":"jbucholtz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":105}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bucholtz","nick_name":"Jeffrey","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","years_held":"1996 - 1997"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":749}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Bucholtz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Green Bag, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Lawyer, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.{{ FIELD }}Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.{{ FIELD }}Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.{{ FIELD }}A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.{{ FIELD }}Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.{{ FIELD }}Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.{{ FIELD }}Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.{{ FIELD }}R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.{{ FIELD }}GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.{{ FIELD }}A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.{{ FIELD }}Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.{{ FIELD }}PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.{{ FIELD }}A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.{{ FIELD }}Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims.{{ FIELD }}GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.{{ FIELD }}A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.{{ FIELD }}A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.{{ FIELD }}A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.{{ FIELD }}Jeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nPreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\nJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy. Jeffrey S Bucholtz Partner Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice  Legal 500, 2015 Practice of the Year, Appellate practice  Law360, 2014 Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief  Green Bag, 2013 Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media  American Lawyer, 2015 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion. Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP. Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador. A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award. Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations. Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions. Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs. R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri. GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims. A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction. A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case. Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments. PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor. Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors. A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration. Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification. Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims. GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute. A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case. A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC. A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.","searchable_name":"Jeffrey S. Bucholtz","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436409,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3246,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarry Burnett focuses on international commercial and investor-state arbitration matters, along with general domestic and international litigation. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Harry represents clients in a broad array of international disputes and frequently serves as an arbitrator in international disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 25 years of litigation and arbitration experience, he represents clients in arbitration of international commercial disputes under rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), JAMS International and the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026amp; Resolution, and in investor-state arbitrations under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the ICSID Additional Facility, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the ICC related to claims under bilateral investment treaties, the Energy Charter Treaty, multilateral investment instruments and local investment laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Harry frequently serves as a mediator as well as arbitrator in international disputes, whether as sole arbitrator, party-appointed arbitrator or chair.\u0026nbsp; He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarry has been ranked in C\u003cem\u003ehambers Global,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u003cem\u003e Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e for International Arbitration\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Oil \u0026amp; Gas Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Energy Lawyers and is an Approved Leading Private Practitioner in Arbitration \u0026ndash; Latin American Corporate Counsel Association\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker and author, Harry is fluent in English, Spanish and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND ILLINOIS; AND\u0026nbsp;FLORIDA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"henry-burnett","email":"hburnett@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 763 6098","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSouth American Silver Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the UK-Bolivia bilateral investment treaty. The dispute concerns a silver, indium and gallium mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe Renco Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL Arbitration against Peru brought under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The dispute concerns a copper mining project and poly-metallic smelting operation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBear Creek Mining Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Peru in the first case brought under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The dispute concerns a silver mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Asian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential investor-state arbitration against a Latin American state concerning a large iron ore mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea state-owned entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICC arbitration in a construction dispute relating to expansion of an oil refinery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Latin American pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration related to claims arising out of the sale of the company to an international pharmaceutical company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enternational telecommunications provide\u003c/strong\u003er in ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and fraud claims concerning a master services IT agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international telecommunications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules concerning breach of contract claims and counterclaims for monies allegedly owed for termination of international call traffic.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Argentine client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICDR arbitration against South American gas distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational hospitality company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international disputes related to hotel properties in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Korea and Guam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eKhan Resources Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the jurisdictional phase of an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration (including contract and investment law claims) against Mongolia concerning a Uranium mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian electronics company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration against another Asian electronics company in dispute related to patent license agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multilateral, quasi-governmental entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in a dispute with an Asian supplier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against U.S. distributor in ICDR arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against U.S. joint-venture party in arbitration under the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained arbitral award for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product distributor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international arbitration (ICDR) after multiple hearing days, multiple expert witnesses and multiple languages in connection with complex claims, counterclaims and jurisdictional issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian claiman\u003c/strong\u003et in enforcement action in the United States under the Panama Convention of an arbitral award rendered by a tribunal in an arbitration seated in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;commenced against client,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European governmental entity,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking over $40 million in damages for breach of contract and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEastern European government\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel proceedings before two international arbitral institutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained separate arbitral awards against telecommunications companies in two West Africa countries on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international voice and data communications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international voice and data communications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two separate ICDR proceedings against South American telecommunications companies; obtained favorable settlements for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of investor in case under NAFTA against one of the member states for violations of NAFTA and international law in connection with a mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defeated anti-suit injunction action brought against client,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea South American corporation,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking to enjoin the client from proceeding with an action in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePresident of arbitral tribunal in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving breach of contract and related claims between two Caribbean-based companies and their North American joint venture partner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePresident of arbitral tribunal in between\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between Asian manufacturer of digital devices against North American reseller seeking amounts allegedly owed under supplier agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-arbitrator in multiparty dispute under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICDR Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning claims to respective interests in an online gaming business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-arbitrator in dispute between a South American party and an Australian party under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICDR Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;related to breach of contract and related claims concerning shipments of coal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in arbitration under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe AAA Commercial Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims arising out of joint venture for the purchase and sale of pig iron.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between Asian manufacturer of office supplies and North American purchaser involving claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCDR arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims for failure to procure multiple performances in South America by internationally renowned recording artist.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMediator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ereal estate dispute\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between North American- and Caribbean-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in a dispute under the AAA Commercial Rules, administered by the ICDR, related to alleged breach of contract related to commission payments under referral agreement for raising financing. (Finance)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":72}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burnett","nick_name":"Harry","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Henry","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Mining 2024","detail":"WWL"},{"title":"Inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in International Arbitration - Commercial","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®"},{"title":"Chambers Brazil","detail":"2022"},{"title":"A Global Perspective: M\u0026A Deals and Disputes Heading into 2022","detail":"Berkeley Research Group’s Publication, 2022"},{"title":"“He understands client service, how different cultures work, is always on top of the case and is easy to interact with.\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2022"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Oil \u0026 GAS","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Energy","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Arbitration","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Leading Individual","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America 2022"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer for International Arbitration by The Latin American Corporate Counsel Association","detail":"LACCA"},{"title":"International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"\"He is a tough negotiator and he helped us get a really great deal.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"He knows how to fight, how to analyze the case as a whole and how to go into detail.\"","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"He has \"invaluable expertise,\" \"was really exceptional,\" and \"really led the way...\"","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"\"Henry Burnett has a long experience and good reputation in the region.\"","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250"},{"title":"The Legal 500 Latin America","detail":""},{"title":"The International Who's Who of Oil \u0026 Gas Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"The International Who's Who of Energy Lawyers","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-g-harry-burnett-1952721b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarry Burnett focuses on international commercial and investor-state arbitration matters, along with general domestic and international litigation. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Harry represents clients in a broad array of international disputes and frequently serves as an arbitrator in international disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 25 years of litigation and arbitration experience, he represents clients in arbitration of international commercial disputes under rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), JAMS International and the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026amp; Resolution, and in investor-state arbitrations under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the ICSID Additional Facility, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the ICC related to claims under bilateral investment treaties, the Energy Charter Treaty, multilateral investment instruments and local investment laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Harry frequently serves as a mediator as well as arbitrator in international disputes, whether as sole arbitrator, party-appointed arbitrator or chair.\u0026nbsp; He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarry has been ranked in C\u003cem\u003ehambers Global,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u003cem\u003e Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e for International Arbitration\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Oil \u0026amp; Gas Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Energy Lawyers and is an Approved Leading Private Practitioner in Arbitration \u0026ndash; Latin American Corporate Counsel Association\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker and author, Harry is fluent in English, Spanish and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND ILLINOIS; AND\u0026nbsp;FLORIDA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSouth American Silver Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the UK-Bolivia bilateral investment treaty. The dispute concerns a silver, indium and gallium mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe Renco Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL Arbitration against Peru brought under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The dispute concerns a copper mining project and poly-metallic smelting operation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting claimant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBear Creek Mining Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Peru in the first case brought under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The dispute concerns a silver mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Asian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential investor-state arbitration against a Latin American state concerning a large iron ore mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea state-owned entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICC arbitration in a construction dispute relating to expansion of an oil refinery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Latin American pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration related to claims arising out of the sale of the company to an international pharmaceutical company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enternational telecommunications provide\u003c/strong\u003er in ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and fraud claims concerning a master services IT agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international telecommunications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules concerning breach of contract claims and counterclaims for monies allegedly owed for termination of international call traffic.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Argentine client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICDR arbitration against South American gas distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational hospitality company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international disputes related to hotel properties in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Korea and Guam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eKhan Resources Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the jurisdictional phase of an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration (including contract and investment law claims) against Mongolia concerning a Uranium mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian electronics company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration against another Asian electronics company in dispute related to patent license agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multilateral, quasi-governmental entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in a dispute with an Asian supplier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against U.S. distributor in ICDR arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against U.S. joint-venture party in arbitration under the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained arbitral award for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian product distributor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international arbitration (ICDR) after multiple hearing days, multiple expert witnesses and multiple languages in connection with complex claims, counterclaims and jurisdictional issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Brazilian claiman\u003c/strong\u003et in enforcement action in the United States under the Panama Convention of an arbitral award rendered by a tribunal in an arbitration seated in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;commenced against client,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European governmental entity,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking over $40 million in damages for breach of contract and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEastern European government\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel proceedings before two international arbitral institutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained separate arbitral awards against telecommunications companies in two West Africa countries on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international voice and data communications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international voice and data communications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two separate ICDR proceedings against South American telecommunications companies; obtained favorable settlements for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of investor in case under NAFTA against one of the member states for violations of NAFTA and international law in connection with a mining project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defeated anti-suit injunction action brought against client,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea South American corporation,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking to enjoin the client from proceeding with an action in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePresident of arbitral tribunal in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving breach of contract and related claims between two Caribbean-based companies and their North American joint venture partner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePresident of arbitral tribunal in between\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between Asian manufacturer of digital devices against North American reseller seeking amounts allegedly owed under supplier agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-arbitrator in multiparty dispute under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICDR Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning claims to respective interests in an online gaming business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-arbitrator in dispute between a South American party and an Australian party under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICDR Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;related to breach of contract and related claims concerning shipments of coal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in arbitration under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe AAA Commercial Rules\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims arising out of joint venture for the purchase and sale of pig iron.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between Asian manufacturer of office supplies and North American purchaser involving claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole arbitrator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCDR arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims for failure to procure multiple performances in South America by internationally renowned recording artist.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMediator in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ereal estate dispute\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;between North American- and Caribbean-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in a dispute under the AAA Commercial Rules, administered by the ICDR, related to alleged breach of contract related to commission payments under referral agreement for raising financing. (Finance)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Mining 2024","detail":"WWL"},{"title":"Inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in International Arbitration - Commercial","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®"},{"title":"Chambers Brazil","detail":"2022"},{"title":"A Global Perspective: M\u0026A Deals and Disputes Heading into 2022","detail":"Berkeley Research Group’s Publication, 2022"},{"title":"“He understands client service, how different cultures work, is always on top of the case and is easy to interact with.\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2022"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Oil \u0026 GAS","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Energy","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Arbitration","detail":"GAR"},{"title":"Leading Individual","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America 2022"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer for International Arbitration by The Latin American Corporate Counsel Association","detail":"LACCA"},{"title":"International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"\"He is a tough negotiator and he helped us get a really great deal.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"He knows how to fight, how to analyze the case as a whole and how to go into detail.\"","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"He has \"invaluable expertise,\" \"was really exceptional,\" and \"really led the way...\"","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"\"Henry Burnett has a long experience and good reputation in the region.\"","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250"},{"title":"The Legal 500 Latin America","detail":""},{"title":"The International Who's Who of Oil \u0026 Gas Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"The International Who's Who of Energy Lawyers","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8611}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Burnett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal: Mining 2024\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WWL\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in International Arbitration - Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Brazil\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"A Global Perspective: M\u0026amp;A Deals and Disputes Heading into 2022\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Berkeley Research Group’s Publication, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He understands client service, how different cultures work, is always on top of the case and is easy to interact with.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Oil \u0026amp; GAS\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GAR\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Energy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GAR\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GAR\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Individual\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Latin America 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading lawyer for International Arbitration by The Latin American Corporate Counsel Association\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LACCA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a tough negotiator and he helped us get a really great deal.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He knows how to fight, how to analyze the case as a whole and how to go into detail.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Latin America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"He has \\\"invaluable expertise,\\\" \\\"was really exceptional,\\\" and \\\"really led the way...\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Latin America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Henry Burnett has a long experience and good reputation in the region.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Latin Lawyer 250\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 Latin America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The International Who's Who of Oil \u0026amp; Gas Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The International Who's Who of Energy Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing claimant South American Silver Ltd. in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the UK-Bolivia bilateral investment treaty. The dispute concerns a silver, indium and gallium mining project.{{ FIELD }}Representing claimant The Renco Group in a UNCITRAL Arbitration against Peru brought under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The dispute concerns a copper mining project and poly-metallic smelting operation.{{ FIELD }}Representing claimant Bear Creek Mining Company in an ICSID arbitration against Peru in the first case brought under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The dispute concerns a silver mining project.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Asian mining company in a potential investor-state arbitration against a Latin American state concerning a large iron ore mining project.{{ FIELD }}Representing a state-owned entity in a multibillion dollar ICC arbitration in a construction dispute relating to expansion of an oil refinery.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Latin American pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration related to claims arising out of the sale of the company to an international pharmaceutical company.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international telecommunications provider in ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and fraud claims concerning a master services IT agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international telecommunications provider in ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules concerning breach of contract claims and counterclaims for monies allegedly owed for termination of international call traffic.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an Argentine client in ICDR arbitration against South American gas distribution company.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international hospitality company in international disputes related to hotel properties in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Korea and Guam.{{ FIELD }}Representation of Khan Resources Inc. in the jurisdictional phase of an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration (including contract and investment law claims) against Mongolia concerning a Uranium mining project.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an Asian electronics company in ICC arbitration against another Asian electronics company in dispute related to patent license agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a multilateral, quasi-governmental entity in ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in a dispute with an Asian supplier.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Brazilian product manufacturer against U.S. distributor in ICDR arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Brazilian product manufacturer against U.S. joint-venture party in arbitration under the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.{{ FIELD }}Obtained arbitral award for a Brazilian product distributor in international arbitration (ICDR) after multiple hearing days, multiple expert witnesses and multiple languages in connection with complex claims, counterclaims and jurisdictional issues.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a Brazilian claimant in enforcement action in the United States under the Panama Convention of an arbitral award rendered by a tribunal in an arbitration seated in Brazil.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of an ICC arbitration commenced against client, an Eastern European governmental entity, seeking over $40 million in damages for breach of contract and related claims.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an Eastern European government in parallel proceedings before two international arbitral institutions.{{ FIELD }}Obtained separate arbitral awards against telecommunications companies in two West Africa countries on behalf of an international voice and data communications company in ad hoc arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international voice and data communications company in two separate ICDR proceedings against South American telecommunications companies; obtained favorable settlements for client.{{ FIELD }}Representation of investor in case under NAFTA against one of the member states for violations of NAFTA and international law in connection with a mining project.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defeated anti-suit injunction action brought against client, a South American corporation, seeking to enjoin the client from proceeding with an action in South America.{{ FIELD }}President of arbitral tribunal in an ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and related claims between two Caribbean-based companies and their North American joint venture partner.{{ FIELD }}President of arbitral tribunal in between an ICC arbitration between Asian manufacturer of digital devices against North American reseller seeking amounts allegedly owed under supplier agreement.{{ FIELD }}Co-arbitrator in multiparty dispute under the ICDR Rules concerning claims to respective interests in an online gaming business.{{ FIELD }}Co-arbitrator in dispute between a South American party and an Australian party under the ICDR Rules related to breach of contract and related claims concerning shipments of coal.{{ FIELD }}Sole arbitrator in arbitration under the AAA Commercial Rules between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims arising out of joint venture for the purchase and sale of pig iron.{{ FIELD }}Sole arbitrator in ICC arbitration between Asian manufacturer of office supplies and North American purchaser involving claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Sole arbitrator in ICDR arbitration between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims for failure to procure multiple performances in South America by internationally renowned recording artist.{{ FIELD }}Mediator in a real estate dispute between North American- and Caribbean-based company.{{ FIELD }}Sole Arbitrator in a dispute under the AAA Commercial Rules, administered by the ICDR, related to alleged breach of contract related to commission payments under referral agreement for raising financing. (Finance){{ FIELD }}Harry Burnett focuses on international commercial and investor-state arbitration matters, along with general domestic and international litigation. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Harry represents clients in a broad array of international disputes and frequently serves as an arbitrator in international disputes.\nWith more than 25 years of litigation and arbitration experience, he represents clients in arbitration of international commercial disputes under rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), JAMS International and the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026amp; Resolution, and in investor-state arbitrations under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the ICSID Additional Facility, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the ICC related to claims under bilateral investment treaties, the Energy Charter Treaty, multilateral investment instruments and local investment laws.\nIn addition, Harry frequently serves as a mediator as well as arbitrator in international disputes, whether as sole arbitrator, party-appointed arbitrator or chair.  He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.\nHarry has been ranked in Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Chambers Latin America and Legal 500 for International Arbitration. He has also been recognized by The International Who’s Who of Oil \u0026amp; Gas Lawyers and The International Who’s Who of Energy Lawyers and is an Approved Leading Private Practitioner in Arbitration – Latin American Corporate Counsel Association\nA frequent speaker and author, Harry is fluent in English, Spanish and Portuguese.\n \nADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND ILLINOIS; AND FLORIDA Henry Burnett Partner Who's Who Legal: Mining 2024 WWL Inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in International Arbitration - Commercial The Best Lawyers in America® Chambers Brazil 2022 A Global Perspective: M\u0026amp;A Deals and Disputes Heading into 2022 Berkeley Research Group’s Publication, 2022 “He understands client service, how different cultures work, is always on top of the case and is easy to interact with.\" Chambers Global 2022 Who’s Who Legal: Oil \u0026amp; GAS GAR Who’s Who Legal: Energy GAR Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Arbitration GAR Leading Individual Legal 500 Latin America 2022 Named a leading lawyer for International Arbitration by The Latin American Corporate Counsel Association LACCA International Arbitration Chambers Global \"He is a tough negotiator and he helped us get a really great deal.\" Chambers USA \"He knows how to fight, how to analyze the case as a whole and how to go into detail.\" Chambers Latin America He has \"invaluable expertise,\" \"was really exceptional,\" and \"really led the way...\" Chambers Latin America \"Henry Burnett has a long experience and good reputation in the region.\" Latin Lawyer 250 The Legal 500 Latin America  The International Who's Who of Oil \u0026amp; Gas Lawyers  The International Who's Who of Energy Lawyers  University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Florida Illinois New Jersey New York Approved Leading Private Practitioner in Arbitration – Latin American Corporate Counsel Association Director, Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, New York Visiting Professor, \"Investor-State Arbitration\", Vanderbilt Law School Director, Miami International Arbitration Society, 2023 Adjunct Professor, University of Miami School of Law Representing claimant South American Silver Ltd. in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the UK-Bolivia bilateral investment treaty. The dispute concerns a silver, indium and gallium mining project. Representing claimant The Renco Group in a UNCITRAL Arbitration against Peru brought under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The dispute concerns a copper mining project and poly-metallic smelting operation. Representing claimant Bear Creek Mining Company in an ICSID arbitration against Peru in the first case brought under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The dispute concerns a silver mining project. Representing a Asian mining company in a potential investor-state arbitration against a Latin American state concerning a large iron ore mining project. Representing a state-owned entity in a multibillion dollar ICC arbitration in a construction dispute relating to expansion of an oil refinery. Representing a Latin American pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration related to claims arising out of the sale of the company to an international pharmaceutical company. Representing an international telecommunications provider in ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and fraud claims concerning a master services IT agreement. Representation of an international telecommunications provider in ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules concerning breach of contract claims and counterclaims for monies allegedly owed for termination of international call traffic. Representation of an Argentine client in ICDR arbitration against South American gas distribution company. Representation of an international hospitality company in international disputes related to hotel properties in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Korea and Guam. Representation of Khan Resources Inc. in the jurisdictional phase of an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration (including contract and investment law claims) against Mongolia concerning a Uranium mining project. Representation of an Asian electronics company in ICC arbitration against another Asian electronics company in dispute related to patent license agreement. Representation of a multilateral, quasi-governmental entity in ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in a dispute with an Asian supplier. Representation of a Brazilian product manufacturer against U.S. distributor in ICDR arbitration. Representation of a Brazilian product manufacturer against U.S. joint-venture party in arbitration under the JAMS International Arbitration Rules. Obtained arbitral award for a Brazilian product distributor in international arbitration (ICDR) after multiple hearing days, multiple expert witnesses and multiple languages in connection with complex claims, counterclaims and jurisdictional issues. Successfully represented a Brazilian claimant in enforcement action in the United States under the Panama Convention of an arbitral award rendered by a tribunal in an arbitration seated in Brazil. Obtained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of an ICC arbitration commenced against client, an Eastern European governmental entity, seeking over $40 million in damages for breach of contract and related claims. Representation of an Eastern European government in parallel proceedings before two international arbitral institutions. Obtained separate arbitral awards against telecommunications companies in two West Africa countries on behalf of an international voice and data communications company in ad hoc arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules. Representation of an international voice and data communications company in two separate ICDR proceedings against South American telecommunications companies; obtained favorable settlements for client. Representation of investor in case under NAFTA against one of the member states for violations of NAFTA and international law in connection with a mining project. Successfully defeated anti-suit injunction action brought against client, a South American corporation, seeking to enjoin the client from proceeding with an action in South America. President of arbitral tribunal in an ICC arbitration involving breach of contract and related claims between two Caribbean-based companies and their North American joint venture partner. President of arbitral tribunal in between an ICC arbitration between Asian manufacturer of digital devices against North American reseller seeking amounts allegedly owed under supplier agreement. Co-arbitrator in multiparty dispute under the ICDR Rules concerning claims to respective interests in an online gaming business. Co-arbitrator in dispute between a South American party and an Australian party under the ICDR Rules related to breach of contract and related claims concerning shipments of coal. Sole arbitrator in arbitration under the AAA Commercial Rules between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims arising out of joint venture for the purchase and sale of pig iron. Sole arbitrator in ICC arbitration between Asian manufacturer of office supplies and North American purchaser involving claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Sole arbitrator in ICDR arbitration between a South American company and a North American company concerning breach of contract and related claims for failure to procure multiple performances in South America by internationally renowned recording artist. Mediator in a real estate dispute between North American- and Caribbean-based company. Sole Arbitrator in a dispute under the AAA Commercial Rules, administered by the ICDR, related to alleged breach of contract related to commission payments under referral agreement for raising financing. (Finance)","searchable_name":"Henry Burnett (Harry)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444643,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5039,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-burnett","email":"zburnett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burnett","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-burnett-2115b148/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Burnett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Staff Editor of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.{{ FIELD }}Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.{{ FIELD }}Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.{{ FIELD }}Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.{{ FIELD }}Zach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office’s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.  His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary focus on toxic torts.\nZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical companies, including in MDL proceedings.  Zach works on multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court, and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments; conducting written discovery; preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.  \nZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.  He also has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment. \nIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active pro bono docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.  Partner Named Staff Editor of the Year  American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas State Bar of Texas Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL. Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general. Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.","searchable_name":"Zachary C. Burnett (Zach)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445975,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3930,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"alexander-calfo","email":"acalfo@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Calfo","nick_name":"Alexander","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Alexander","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":518,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5155},{"id":5155},{"id":5155}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Calfo{{ FIELD }}Alexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes.  He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by The Daily Journal.  His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the “Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.”  The Los Angeles Business Journal chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.  The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Los Angeles office and “has been instrumental in building the firm’s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.” \nAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality. He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\nCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time “must watch” defense verdict for the entire state of California.  Alex was also named “Lawyer of the Year” in the Los Angeles Business Journal for exceptional legal skill and achievement.  Benchmark Litigation recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star.  Legal 500 U.S. ranks Alex “Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.” \nHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer. He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026.  \nAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater. \nAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics. Partner Marquette University Marquette University Law School Creighton University Creighton University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado California American Bar Association Defense Research Institute American Board of Trial Advocates Los Angeles County Bar Association Center for International Studies","searchable_name":"Alexander Calfo","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444465,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":676,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"susan-clare","email":"sclare@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":165}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Clare","nick_name":"Susan","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia","years_held":"2005"}],"first_name":"Susan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":776}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-19T16:18:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-19T16:18:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Clare{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star for Transportation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.{{ FIELD }}Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.{{ FIELD }}Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.{{ FIELD }}Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.{{ FIELD }}Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).{{ FIELD }}Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.{{ FIELD }}Susan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by Law 360. \nSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by The Legal 500, a Rising Star for Transportation by Law 360, a Georgia Rising Star by Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, and was also named to Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List. \nWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\nShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\nIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies, consumer communications, and product recalls. Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\nSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions. Susan M Clare Partner Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South Benchmark Litigation, 2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Named a Rising Star for Transportation Law360, 2018 Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products Super Lawyers, 2013–2019 Order of the Coif  Georgia Institute of Technology  Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia International Academy of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy, 2014 Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data. Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019. Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017. Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires. Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases. Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents. Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud. Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty. Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma. Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products. Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017). Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014). Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012). Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011). Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.","searchable_name":"Susan M. Clare","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442361,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":853,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTodd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.\u0026nbsp; His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition. \u0026nbsp;Mr. Davis\u0026rsquo; practice\u0026nbsp;involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500\u0026rsquo;s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"todd-davis","email":"tdavis@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrying three cases for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying the first \u0026ldquo;innovator liability\u0026rdquo; prescription drug case to go to trial (\u003cem\u003eDolin v. GSK,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2017\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEngle\u003c/em\u003e-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device and pharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the \u0026ldquo;Big Four\u0026rdquo; federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ere\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePrempro\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProds. Liab. Lit.\u003c/em\u003e, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea statewide claim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, \u0026sect; 17200\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailure-to-warn claims\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving a prescription medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eE.g., O\u0026rsquo;Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCandace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully excluding plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s experts\u0026rsquo; opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues in the breast implant litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllison v. McGhan Medical Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;filed in the \u0026ldquo;rocket-docket\u0026rdquo; of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending on appeal summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based upon the learned intermediary doctrine.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereh\u0026rsquo;g denied by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgment in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHoward v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.)\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fraudulent concealment.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCollins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff'd\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epersonal injury lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving prescription medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor responsibility in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred breast implant cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully arguing for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etransfer of a host of cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; home states under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-ranking company executives\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in depositions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s order.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":63}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Davis","nick_name":"Todd","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Todd","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTodd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.\u0026nbsp; His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition. \u0026nbsp;Mr. Davis\u0026rsquo; practice\u0026nbsp;involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500\u0026rsquo;s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrying three cases for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying the first \u0026ldquo;innovator liability\u0026rdquo; prescription drug case to go to trial (\u003cem\u003eDolin v. GSK,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2017\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEngle\u003c/em\u003e-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device and pharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the \u0026ldquo;Big Four\u0026rdquo; federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ere\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePrempro\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProds. Liab. Lit.\u003c/em\u003e, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea statewide claim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, \u0026sect; 17200\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailure-to-warn claims\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving a prescription medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eE.g., O\u0026rsquo;Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCandace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully excluding plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s experts\u0026rsquo; opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues in the breast implant litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllison v. McGhan Medical Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;filed in the \u0026ldquo;rocket-docket\u0026rdquo; of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending on appeal summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based upon the learned intermediary doctrine.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereh\u0026rsquo;g denied by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgment in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHoward v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.)\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fraudulent concealment.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCollins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff'd\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epersonal injury lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving prescription medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor responsibility in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred breast implant cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully arguing for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etransfer of a host of cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; home states under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-ranking company executives\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in depositions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s order.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":805}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:30.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Davis{{ FIELD }}Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.{{ FIELD }}Trying the first “innovator liability” prescription drug case to go to trial (Dolin v. GSK, 2017).{{ FIELD }}Trying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the Engle-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).{{ FIELD }}Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).{{ FIELD }}Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).{{ FIELD }}Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).{{ FIELD }}Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).{{ FIELD }}Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications.{{ FIELD }}Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.){{ FIELD }}Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions.{{ FIELD }}Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.{{ FIELD }}Todd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.  His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs’ key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition.  Mr. Davis’ practice involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.\nMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500’s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category. Todd P Davis Partner Stetson University Stetson University College of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Florida Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association The Florida Bar Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages. Trying the first “innovator liability” prescription drug case to go to trial (Dolin v. GSK, 2017). Trying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the Engle-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020). Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005). Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007). Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla). Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement. Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009). Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal. Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims. Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications. Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict. Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.) Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions. Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.","searchable_name":"Todd P. Davis","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":431883,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3969,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Lisa has almost 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience developing regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for companies selling FDA-regulated products (i.e., drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, and tobacco). \u0026nbsp;She has served as an advisor to high-level public officials and C-suite executives on complex regulatory, policy, and litigation issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Lisa served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the FDA Commissioner\u0026rsquo;s Office and as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. In these roles, she provided strategic counsel on the agency\u0026rsquo;s most significant and complex issues. These included off-label marketing, mobile medical apps/digital health, opioid misuse and abuse, in vitro diagnostics and next generation sequencing, cosmetic legislation and regulation, and antimicrobial drug development and use. During her tenure at the FDA, she also worked closely with Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa is a frequent author and speaker on topics including:\u0026nbsp; digital health, advertising and promoting drugs and devices, remedying unfair competition in the drug and device space, women\u0026rsquo;s health issues, admissibility of 510(k)s in product liability lawsuits, preemption, in vitro diagnostics, the 21st Century Cures Act, and other topics. Lisa is Chambers ranked for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Law. She also has been repeatedly recognized by Legal 500 as a Next Generation Partner and as a Recommended Key Lawyer for FDA Regulatory Law (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) and for Government Relations (2016). Legal 500 has distinguished her for her expertise in digital health/AI and in pre-market strategies, and praised for her \u0026ldquo;unending enthusiasm to take on client\u0026rsquo;s causes as her own.\"\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-dwyer","email":"ldwyer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eFocus on Digital Health/Telehealth\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFocus on In Vitro Diagnostic Tests and Laboratory Developed Tests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFDA/FTC regulation of advertising and promotion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePre-market development (drugs and devices (including digital health products))\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFDA product submissions (drugs and devices (including digital health products))\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDevelops regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for unfair competition in the drug/device space\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Lanham Act\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Unfair trade practice statutes (state and federal)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEngages FDA and Congress on key issues related to FDA-regulated products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eResponds to FDA/FTC inquires, FDA warning letters, and FDA 483s\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExperience remedying cGMP issues at facilities making OTC and Rx drugs and cosmetics\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-Chairs Women's Health Initiative\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of Cannabis Steering Committee\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":53}]},"expertise":[{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Dwyer","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":753,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500, 2017 and 2019"},{"title":"Recognition for Government Relations ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Draft Guidance for Laboratory Developed Tests ","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Publishing FDA Strategic Priorities 2014–2018 Document","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015"},{"title":"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) System Final Rule ","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, FDA Language Access Plan Working Group","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Good Guidance Practices-Best Practices Working Group (Group Leader)","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2012"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Menu Labeling Working Group","detail":"CFSAN/FDA Award Ceremony, 2011"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Lisa has almost 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience developing regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for companies selling FDA-regulated products (i.e., drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, and tobacco). \u0026nbsp;She has served as an advisor to high-level public officials and C-suite executives on complex regulatory, policy, and litigation issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Lisa served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the FDA Commissioner\u0026rsquo;s Office and as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. In these roles, she provided strategic counsel on the agency\u0026rsquo;s most significant and complex issues. These included off-label marketing, mobile medical apps/digital health, opioid misuse and abuse, in vitro diagnostics and next generation sequencing, cosmetic legislation and regulation, and antimicrobial drug development and use. During her tenure at the FDA, she also worked closely with Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa is a frequent author and speaker on topics including:\u0026nbsp; digital health, advertising and promoting drugs and devices, remedying unfair competition in the drug and device space, women\u0026rsquo;s health issues, admissibility of 510(k)s in product liability lawsuits, preemption, in vitro diagnostics, the 21st Century Cures Act, and other topics. Lisa is Chambers ranked for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Law. She also has been repeatedly recognized by Legal 500 as a Next Generation Partner and as a Recommended Key Lawyer for FDA Regulatory Law (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) and for Government Relations (2016). Legal 500 has distinguished her for her expertise in digital health/AI and in pre-market strategies, and praised for her \u0026ldquo;unending enthusiasm to take on client\u0026rsquo;s causes as her own.\"\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eFocus on Digital Health/Telehealth\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFocus on In Vitro Diagnostic Tests and Laboratory Developed Tests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFDA/FTC regulation of advertising and promotion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePre-market development (drugs and devices (including digital health products))\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFDA product submissions (drugs and devices (including digital health products))\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDevelops regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for unfair competition in the drug/device space\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Lanham Act\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Unfair trade practice statutes (state and federal)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEngages FDA and Congress on key issues related to FDA-regulated products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eResponds to FDA/FTC inquires, FDA warning letters, and FDA 483s\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExperience remedying cGMP issues at facilities making OTC and Rx drugs and cosmetics\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-Chairs Women's Health Initiative\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of Cannabis Steering Committee\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500, 2017 and 2019"},{"title":"Recognition for Government Relations ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Draft Guidance for Laboratory Developed Tests ","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Publishing FDA Strategic Priorities 2014–2018 Document","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015"},{"title":"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) System Final Rule ","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, FDA Language Access Plan Working Group","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Good Guidance Practices-Best Practices Working Group (Group Leader)","detail":"FDA Award Ceremony, 2012"},{"title":"FDA Group Recognition Award, Menu Labeling Working Group","detail":"CFSAN/FDA Award Ceremony, 2011"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11487}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-07-09T20:54:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-07-09T20:54:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Dwyer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2017 and 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognition for Government Relations \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Draft Guidance for Laboratory Developed Tests \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Group Recognition Award, Publishing FDA Strategic Priorities 2014–2018 Document\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA Award Ceremony, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) System Final Rule \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Group Recognition Award, FDA Language Access Plan Working Group\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA Award Ceremony, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Group Recognition Award, Good Guidance Practices-Best Practices Working Group (Group Leader)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA Award Ceremony, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"FDA Group Recognition Award, Menu Labeling Working Group\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CFSAN/FDA Award Ceremony, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}Focus on Digital Health/Telehealth{{ FIELD }}Focus on In Vitro Diagnostic Tests and Laboratory Developed Tests{{ FIELD }}FDA/FTC regulation of advertising and promotion{{ FIELD }}Pre-market development (drugs and devices (including digital health products)){{ FIELD }}FDA product submissions (drugs and devices (including digital health products)){{ FIELD }}Develops regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for unfair competition in the drug/device space\n- Lanham Act\n- Unfair trade practice statutes (state and federal){{ FIELD }}Engages FDA and Congress on key issues related to FDA-regulated products{{ FIELD }}Responds to FDA/FTC inquires, FDA warning letters, and FDA 483s{{ FIELD }}Experience remedying cGMP issues at facilities making OTC and Rx drugs and cosmetics{{ FIELD }}Co-Chairs Women's Health Initiative{{ FIELD }}Member of Cannabis Steering Committee{{ FIELD }}A partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Lisa has almost 25 years of experience developing regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for companies selling FDA-regulated products (i.e., drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, and tobacco).  She has served as an advisor to high-level public officials and C-suite executives on complex regulatory, policy, and litigation issues.\nPreviously, Lisa served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the FDA Commissioner’s Office and as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. In these roles, she provided strategic counsel on the agency’s most significant and complex issues. These included off-label marketing, mobile medical apps/digital health, opioid misuse and abuse, in vitro diagnostics and next generation sequencing, cosmetic legislation and regulation, and antimicrobial drug development and use. During her tenure at the FDA, she also worked closely with Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).\nLisa is a frequent author and speaker on topics including:  digital health, advertising and promoting drugs and devices, remedying unfair competition in the drug and device space, women’s health issues, admissibility of 510(k)s in product liability lawsuits, preemption, in vitro diagnostics, the 21st Century Cures Act, and other topics. Lisa is Chambers ranked for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Law. She also has been repeatedly recognized by Legal 500 as a Next Generation Partner and as a Recommended Key Lawyer for FDA Regulatory Law (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) and for Government Relations (2016). Legal 500 has distinguished her for her expertise in digital health/AI and in pre-market strategies, and praised for her “unending enthusiasm to take on client’s causes as her own.\" Lisa M Dwyer Partner Next Generation Lawyer Legal 500, 2017 and 2019 Recognition for Government Relations  Legal 500, 2016 FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Draft Guidance for Laboratory Developed Tests  FDA Award Ceremony, 2015 FDA Group Recognition Award, Publishing FDA Strategic Priorities 2014–2018 Document FDA Award Ceremony, 2015 FDA Commissioner’s Special Citation, Issuance of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) System Final Rule  FDA Award Ceremony, 2014 FDA Group Recognition Award, FDA Language Access Plan Working Group FDA Award Ceremony, 2014 FDA Group Recognition Award, Good Guidance Practices-Best Practices Working Group (Group Leader) FDA Award Ceremony, 2012 FDA Group Recognition Award, Menu Labeling Working Group CFSAN/FDA Award Ceremony, 2011 Wesleyan University  George Washington University George Washington University Law School District of Columbia Massachusetts Pennsylvania Focus on Digital Health/Telehealth Focus on In Vitro Diagnostic Tests and Laboratory Developed Tests FDA/FTC regulation of advertising and promotion Pre-market development (drugs and devices (including digital health products)) FDA product submissions (drugs and devices (including digital health products)) Develops regulatory, legislative and litigation solutions for unfair competition in the drug/device space\n- Lanham Act\n- Unfair trade practice statutes (state and federal) Engages FDA and Congress on key issues related to FDA-regulated products Responds to FDA/FTC inquires, FDA warning letters, and FDA 483s Experience remedying cGMP issues at facilities making OTC and Rx drugs and cosmetics Co-Chairs Women's Health Initiative Member of Cannabis Steering Committee","searchable_name":"Lisa M. Dwyer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427643,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1068,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"harold-franklin","email":"hfranklin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":0,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Franklin","nick_name":"Harold","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Harold","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11788}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Franklin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Legal Elite\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Trend, 2006\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Fulton Daily Report, 2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commitment to Equality Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Justice Benham Community Service Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Presidential Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a \\\"Rising Star\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Lawyer Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Men of Influence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business League, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.{{ FIELD }}Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.{{ FIELD }}Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.{{ FIELD }}Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.{{ FIELD }}Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.{{ FIELD }}Harold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm’s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold’s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.  His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world’s largest corporations in complex “bet-the-company” litigation and trials.  Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world’s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.\nHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the Daily Report’s “Litigation Department of the Year” award publication.\nHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.  More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world’s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\nHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation’s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.  While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\nA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia’s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\nWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm’s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\nHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\nIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.  Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court’s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\nHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln’s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\nHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.  Harold also has been named as a Georgia Super Lawyer (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, as a Legal Elite by Georgia Trend Magazine, recognized by the Daily Report in 2007 as 1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40, and in 2016 by the Daily Report as a Georgia Attorney of the Year Finalist and he has been recognized by Legal 500 USA (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.  In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 – present) by Best Lawyers in America as a leading practitioner in his field.  In 2020, Harold was honored by the Daily Report with its Professional Excellence Award and was also honored as a Georgia Trailblazer. Partner Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present Benchmark Recognized for his national profile as a litigator Legal 500 Georgia Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, 2008-Present Recognized as Legal Elite Georgia Trend, 2006 2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide) Daily Report Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story  Fulton Daily Report, 2007 Commitment to Equality Award State Bar of Georgia, 2012 Justice Benham Community Service Award State Bar of Georgia, 2016 Presidential Award National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012 Ranked as a \"Rising Star\" Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007 Outstanding Lawyer Award  Gate City Bar Association, 2012 Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016 Men of Influence Award Atlanta Business League, 2015 Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp Gate City Bar Association, 2009 Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment. Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments. Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation. Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure. Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions. Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues. Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America. Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement. Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation. Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation. Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.","searchable_name":"Harold E. Franklin, Jr.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}