{"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":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"16","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":444836,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3981,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"erich-almonte","email":"ealmonte@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Almonte","nick_name":"Erich","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Erich","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":693}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Almonte{{ FIELD }}Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.  {{ FIELD }}Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.{{ FIELD }}Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.{{ FIELD }}Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Erich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations. \nErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\nErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army’s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program. Partner Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas District of Columbia Texas Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.   Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation. Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action. Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.","searchable_name":"Erich J. Almonte","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":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":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","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":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":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":442371,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":125,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40\u0026nbsp;years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented\u0026nbsp;leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jkevin-buster","email":"kbuster@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":103}]},"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":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1185,"guid":"1185.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":12,"guid":"12.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Buster","nick_name":"Kevin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Pierce Lively, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"1978 - 1979"}],"first_name":"Kevin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40\u0026nbsp;years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented\u0026nbsp;leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4196}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:42.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Buster{{ FIELD }}Kevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40 years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.\nKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures. J Kevin Buster Partner Duke University Duke University School of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Supreme Court of the United States 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 Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Law Clerk, The Honorable Pierce Lively, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","searchable_name":"Kevin Buster","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442383,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1005,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"randall-butterfield","email":"rbutterfield@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1015,"guid":"1015.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1168,"guid":"1168.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Butterfield","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/randy-butterfield-237ab87/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":757}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Butterfield{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, April 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.{{ FIELD }}One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.{{ FIELD }}An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.{{ FIELD }}An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).{{ FIELD }}The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.{{ FIELD }}A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.{{ FIELD }}An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.{{ FIELD }}A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.{{ FIELD }}A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.{{ FIELD }}One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.{{ FIELD }}A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.{{ FIELD }}A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”).{{ FIELD }}A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).{{ FIELD }}Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).{{ FIELD }}A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.{{ FIELD }}A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.{{ FIELD }}Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.{{ FIELD }}The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant.{{ FIELD }}More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.{{ FIELD }}Randy Butterfield helps lead the firm’s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.\nIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts—as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs’ experts—on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology, fate and transport, remediation, property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy’s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\nRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on Law360’s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\nBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\n• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Georgia Environmental Law, 2022 ed.\n• Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges \u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\n• Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers, Raising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia’s Environment (State Bar of Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Recent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\n• J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield, Common Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation (book chapter) (ABA 2d ed. 2013)\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Note, Recovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997) Partner Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards Law 360, April 2021 Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law 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 Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Texas Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia State Bar of Georgia, Environmental Law Section Atlanta Bar Association, Environmental and Toxic Tort Section (past President) American Bar Association, Section on Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Defense Research Institute (DRI) Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery. One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases. An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns. A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim. A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel. An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit. A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation. A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records. One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion. A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors. A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality. A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado. A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru. Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims. Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019). Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015). Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020). A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims. A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims. Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements. The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species. A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company. A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant. More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.","searchable_name":"Randall J. Butterfield (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"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":442808,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5734,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEva Canaan\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the strategic development and coordination of the scientific defense in pharmaceutical and medical device products liability litigation. In addition to her law degree, Eva holds a Masters in Epidemiology from Columbia University.\u0026nbsp; Eva is adept at challenging expert witness testimony in depositions and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;briefs in federal and state courts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEva focuses on making complex scientific concepts accessible to judges and juries.\u0026nbsp; She routinely works with experts in a variety of scientific disciplines, including epidemiology, toxicology, teratology, and clinical medicine.\u0026nbsp; Going beyond bottom-line conclusions, Eva aggressively interrogates the data and methodology of studies and reports, often exposing flaws and weaknesses glossed over by the authors and plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts.\u0026nbsp; She has deposed plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main causation experts and drafted\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrye\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;briefs in high-stakes litigations affecting hundreds of cases.\u0026nbsp; Eva follows the epidemiological literature related to her clients\u0026rsquo; products \u0026ndash; both in and outside of the litigation context -- and provides real-time analyses and risk-assessments to her clients.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"eva-canaan","email":"ecanaan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict and state court litigation relating to allegations of cancer from a heartburn medication. Leading all science and expert work, encompassing epidemiology, toxicology, oncology, gastroenterology, pharmacology and analytical chemistry. Successfully deposed, briefed, and argued\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion relating to Plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main epidemiology expert.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 20-MD-2924, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-emetic medication. Deposed plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main causation experts to obtain key admissions to support pending\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;challenges to exclude the experts\u0026rsquo; opinions. Successfully briefed motions related to an epidemiological study relied upon by plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts, revealing undisclosed conflicts of interest, including funding of the study by plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 392 F.Supp.3d 179 (D. Mass. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:15-md-2657, 2020 WL 1550563 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal and state litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-depressant medication. Successfully briefed\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion excluding plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general and specific causation experts\u003cem\u003e. Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., No. CIV.A.10-2125, 2012 WL 6697124 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in state and federal litigation relating to allegations of neurological injuries from a denture adhesive product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of heart attack and stroke from an anti-diabetic medication.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":607,"guid":"607.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Canaan","nick_name":"Eva","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Eva","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2619,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named New York Metro Super Lawyers®","detail":"Rising Star, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEva Canaan\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the strategic development and coordination of the scientific defense in pharmaceutical and medical device products liability litigation. In addition to her law degree, Eva holds a Masters in Epidemiology from Columbia University.\u0026nbsp; Eva is adept at challenging expert witness testimony in depositions and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;briefs in federal and state courts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEva focuses on making complex scientific concepts accessible to judges and juries.\u0026nbsp; She routinely works with experts in a variety of scientific disciplines, including epidemiology, toxicology, teratology, and clinical medicine.\u0026nbsp; Going beyond bottom-line conclusions, Eva aggressively interrogates the data and methodology of studies and reports, often exposing flaws and weaknesses glossed over by the authors and plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts.\u0026nbsp; She has deposed plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main causation experts and drafted\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrye\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;briefs in high-stakes litigations affecting hundreds of cases.\u0026nbsp; Eva follows the epidemiological literature related to her clients\u0026rsquo; products \u0026ndash; both in and outside of the litigation context -- and provides real-time analyses and risk-assessments to her clients.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict and state court litigation relating to allegations of cancer from a heartburn medication. Leading all science and expert work, encompassing epidemiology, toxicology, oncology, gastroenterology, pharmacology and analytical chemistry. Successfully deposed, briefed, and argued\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion relating to Plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main epidemiology expert.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 20-MD-2924, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-emetic medication. Deposed plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; main causation experts to obtain key admissions to support pending\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;challenges to exclude the experts\u0026rsquo; opinions. Successfully briefed motions related to an epidemiological study relied upon by plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts, revealing undisclosed conflicts of interest, including funding of the study by plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 392 F.Supp.3d 179 (D. Mass. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:15-md-2657, 2020 WL 1550563 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal and state litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-depressant medication. Successfully briefed\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion excluding plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general and specific causation experts\u003cem\u003e. Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., No. CIV.A.10-2125, 2012 WL 6697124 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in state and federal litigation relating to allegations of neurological injuries from a denture adhesive product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of heart attack and stroke from an anti-diabetic medication.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named New York Metro Super Lawyers®","detail":"Rising Star, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7829}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:52.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:52.000Z","searchable_text":"Canaan{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named New York Metro Super Lawyers®\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict and state court litigation relating to allegations of cancer from a heartburn medication. Leading all science and expert work, encompassing epidemiology, toxicology, oncology, gastroenterology, pharmacology and analytical chemistry. Successfully deposed, briefed, and argued Daubert motion relating to Plaintiffs’ main epidemiology expert. In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 20-MD-2924, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-emetic medication. Deposed plaintiffs’ main causation experts to obtain key admissions to support pending Daubert challenges to exclude the experts’ opinions. Successfully briefed motions related to an epidemiological study relied upon by plaintiffs’ experts, revealing undisclosed conflicts of interest, including funding of the study by plaintiffs’ counsel. In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., 392 F.Supp.3d 179 (D. Mass. 2019), In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:15-md-2657, 2020 WL 1550563 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2020).{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in federal and state litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-depressant medication. Successfully briefed Daubert motion excluding plaintiffs’ general and specific causation experts. Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. CIV.A.10-2125, 2012 WL 6697124 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2012).{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in state and federal litigation relating to allegations of neurological injuries from a denture adhesive product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of heart attack and stroke from an anti-diabetic medication.{{ FIELD }}Eva Canaan’s practice focuses on the strategic development and coordination of the scientific defense in pharmaceutical and medical device products liability litigation. In addition to her law degree, Eva holds a Masters in Epidemiology from Columbia University.  Eva is adept at challenging expert witness testimony in depositions and Daubert briefs in federal and state courts.\nEva focuses on making complex scientific concepts accessible to judges and juries.  She routinely works with experts in a variety of scientific disciplines, including epidemiology, toxicology, teratology, and clinical medicine.  Going beyond bottom-line conclusions, Eva aggressively interrogates the data and methodology of studies and reports, often exposing flaws and weaknesses glossed over by the authors and plaintiffs’ experts.  She has deposed plaintiffs’ main causation experts and drafted Daubert and Frye briefs in high-stakes litigations affecting hundreds of cases.  Eva follows the epidemiological literature related to her clients’ products – both in and outside of the litigation context -- and provides real-time analyses and risk-assessments to her clients.   Partner Named New York Metro Super Lawyers® Rising Star, 2014 New York University New York University School of Law Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York New York State Bar Association - Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law Section Representing major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict and state court litigation relating to allegations of cancer from a heartburn medication. Leading all science and expert work, encompassing epidemiology, toxicology, oncology, gastroenterology, pharmacology and analytical chemistry. Successfully deposed, briefed, and argued Daubert motion relating to Plaintiffs’ main epidemiology expert. In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 20-MD-2924, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2022). Represented a major pharmaceutical company in federal multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-emetic medication. Deposed plaintiffs’ main causation experts to obtain key admissions to support pending Daubert challenges to exclude the experts’ opinions. Successfully briefed motions related to an epidemiological study relied upon by plaintiffs’ experts, revealing undisclosed conflicts of interest, including funding of the study by plaintiffs’ counsel. In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., 392 F.Supp.3d 179 (D. Mass. 2019), In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:15-md-2657, 2020 WL 1550563 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2020). Represented a major pharmaceutical company in federal and state litigation relating to allegations of birth defects from an anti-depressant medication. Successfully briefed Daubert motion excluding plaintiffs’ general and specific causation experts. Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. CIV.A.10-2125, 2012 WL 6697124 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2012). Represented a major pharmaceutical company in state and federal litigation relating to allegations of neurological injuries from a denture adhesive product. Represented a major pharmaceutical company in multidistrict litigation relating to allegations of heart attack and stroke from an anti-diabetic medication.","searchable_name":"Eva Canaan","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":447424,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5470,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMandie M. Cash is a Partner in the Houston office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial Practice and Global Disputes group. Her practice encompasses a diverse range of complex civil litigation, including class action, mass tort, consumer fraud, product liability, construction, and commercial business disputes. She has also appeared before state and federal courts as well as alternative dispute resolution tribunals throughout Texas and Louisiana. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMandie\u0026nbsp;has represented clients in the automotive, pharmaceutical, construction, oil and gas, and hazardous chemical industries. She has successfully briefed numerous\u0026nbsp;dispositive and discovery motions in state and federal courts throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, she has experience handling\u0026nbsp;fact development and case investigation including drafting and responding to written discovery, preparing\u0026nbsp;witnesses for depositions, and resolving various discovery disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMandie earned her Juris Doctor and Graduate Diploma in Comparative Law from Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, \u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e. During law school, she served as an Issues Editor and Senior Associate for the Louisiana Law Review. She received her Bachelor of Arts from Louisiana State University, with honors, in 2011.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mandie-cash","email":"mcash@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Cash","nick_name":"Mandie","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, The Honorable James J. Brady, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana","years_held":"2013 - 2013"}],"first_name":"Mandie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2713,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMandie M. Cash is a Partner in the Houston office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial Practice and Global Disputes group. Her practice encompasses a diverse range of complex civil litigation, including class action, mass tort, consumer fraud, product liability, construction, and commercial business disputes. She has also appeared before state and federal courts as well as alternative dispute resolution tribunals throughout Texas and Louisiana. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMandie\u0026nbsp;has represented clients in the automotive, pharmaceutical, construction, oil and gas, and hazardous chemical industries. She has successfully briefed numerous\u0026nbsp;dispositive and discovery motions in state and federal courts throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, she has experience handling\u0026nbsp;fact development and case investigation including drafting and responding to written discovery, preparing\u0026nbsp;witnesses for depositions, and resolving various discovery disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMandie earned her Juris Doctor and Graduate Diploma in Comparative Law from Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, \u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e. During law school, she served as an Issues Editor and Senior Associate for the Louisiana Law Review. She received her Bachelor of Arts from Louisiana State University, with honors, in 2011.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7220}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-08T14:30:49.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-08T14:30:49.000Z","searchable_text":"Cash{{ FIELD }}Mandie M. Cash is a Partner in the Houston office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and is a member of the firm’s Trial Practice and Global Disputes group. Her practice encompasses a diverse range of complex civil litigation, including class action, mass tort, consumer fraud, product liability, construction, and commercial business disputes. She has also appeared before state and federal courts as well as alternative dispute resolution tribunals throughout Texas and Louisiana. \nMandie has represented clients in the automotive, pharmaceutical, construction, oil and gas, and hazardous chemical industries. She has successfully briefed numerous dispositive and discovery motions in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Additionally, she has experience handling fact development and case investigation including drafting and responding to written discovery, preparing witnesses for depositions, and resolving various discovery disputes.\nMandie earned her Juris Doctor and Graduate Diploma in Comparative Law from Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, cum laude. During law school, she served as an Issues Editor and Senior Associate for the Louisiana Law Review. She received her Bachelor of Arts from Louisiana State University, with honors, in 2011. Partner Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Louisiana Texas Houston Bar Association Houston Young Lawyers Association Intern, The Honorable James J. Brady, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana","searchable_name":"Mandie M. Cash","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}]}}