{"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":"L","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":426442,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3570,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation\u0026nbsp;(MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey\u0026nbsp;recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.\u0026nbsp; She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.\u0026nbsp; She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"bailey-langner","email":"blangner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Langner","nick_name":"Bailey","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bailey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation\u0026nbsp;(MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey\u0026nbsp;recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.\u0026nbsp; She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.\u0026nbsp; She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":984}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Langner{{ FIELD }}Bailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation (MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face.  \nIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.  She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.  She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status.  \nBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program.   Partner Brown University  University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley, School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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","searchable_name":"Bailey J. Langner","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":426823,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5701,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlvin Lee\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex commercial disputes,\u0026nbsp;mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology\u0026nbsp;sectors, among others. \u0026nbsp;He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure,\u0026nbsp;and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events\u0026nbsp;such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has been described as a \u0026ldquo;super litigator\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003eand was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.\u0026nbsp; Alvin has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.\u0026nbsp; He served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e's\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.\u0026nbsp; In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by \u003cem\u003eCrain's New York Business\u003c/em\u003e as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022\u0026nbsp;and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers\u0026nbsp;of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.\u0026nbsp; He has also represented raw material\u0026nbsp;and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure\u0026nbsp;projects.\u0026nbsp; He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as\u0026nbsp;in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits. \u0026nbsp;He has defended companies\u0026nbsp;in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product\u0026nbsp;liability dockets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate\u0026nbsp;and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings\u0026nbsp;before various tribunals, including recent victories\u0026nbsp;in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.\u0026nbsp; He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"alvin-lee","email":"alvin.lee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHemlock Semiconductor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Michigan Bar Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded medical technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBig Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Chinese solar panel manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Union Carbide Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreviously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Carbide Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lee","nick_name":"Alvin","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Alvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)","detail":"The American Lawyer"},{"title":"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader","detail":"Crain's New York Business"},{"title":"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40","detail":"Bloomberg Law"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2024"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Editorial Board, Energy","detail":"Law360, 2022"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law","detail":"Crain's New York Business, 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star (Energy)","detail":"Law360, 2021"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlvin Lee\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex commercial disputes,\u0026nbsp;mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology\u0026nbsp;sectors, among others. \u0026nbsp;He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure,\u0026nbsp;and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events\u0026nbsp;such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has been described as a \u0026ldquo;super litigator\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003eand was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.\u0026nbsp; Alvin has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.\u0026nbsp; He served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e's\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.\u0026nbsp; In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by \u003cem\u003eCrain's New York Business\u003c/em\u003e as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022\u0026nbsp;and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers\u0026nbsp;of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.\u0026nbsp; He has also represented raw material\u0026nbsp;and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure\u0026nbsp;projects.\u0026nbsp; He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as\u0026nbsp;in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits. \u0026nbsp;He has defended companies\u0026nbsp;in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product\u0026nbsp;liability dockets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate\u0026nbsp;and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings\u0026nbsp;before various tribunals, including recent victories\u0026nbsp;in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.\u0026nbsp; He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHemlock Semiconductor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Michigan Bar Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded medical technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBig Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Chinese solar panel manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Union Carbide Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreviously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Carbide Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)","detail":"The American Lawyer"},{"title":"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader","detail":"Crain's New York Business"},{"title":"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40","detail":"Bloomberg Law"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2024"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Editorial Board, Energy","detail":"Law360, 2022"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law","detail":"Crain's New York Business, 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star (Energy)","detail":"Law360, 2021"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7619}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:12.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Lee{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain's New York Business\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bloomberg Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editorial Board, Energy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain's New York Business, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star (Energy)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution in a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.{{ FIELD }}Represented Hemlock Semiconductor in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that The Michigan Bar Journal named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.{{ FIELD }}Representing The Dow Chemical Company in a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a private equity fund and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel for a publicly traded medical technology company in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Big Four accounting firm in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}First-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of a major Chinese solar panel manufacturer against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.{{ FIELD }}Represented the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) in a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.{{ FIELD }}First-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of a major U.S. manufacturing company against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.{{ FIELD }}Acted as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against Union Carbide Corporation alleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.{{ FIELD }}Previously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for Union Carbide Corporation in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.{{ FIELD }}Represented PricewaterhouseCoopers in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against PricewaterhouseCoopers alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.{{ FIELD }}Alvin Lee focuses on complex commercial disputes, mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology sectors, among others.  He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.  In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\nAlvin has been described as a “super litigator” in The Legal 500 and was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.  Alvin has also been recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.  He served on Law360's Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a Law360 Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.  In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by Crain's New York Business as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022 and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\n\nAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.  He has also represented raw material and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure projects.  He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.  \nAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits.  He has defended companies in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.  Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product liability dockets. \nIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.  He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.  Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings before various tribunals, including recent victories in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\nAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.  He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations. Partner Legal Lion of the Week Law360 Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up) The American Lawyer Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader Crain's New York Business They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40 Bloomberg Law 40 \u0026amp; Under List Benchmark Litigation, 2024 40 \u0026amp; Under List Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Editorial Board, Energy Law360, 2022 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2022 Notable Diverse Leader in the Law Crain's New York Business, 2022 Rising Star (Energy) Law360, 2021 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021 Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2020 Cornell University Cornell Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois New York Representing a major financial institution in a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements. Represented Hemlock Semiconductor in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that The Michigan Bar Journal named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan. Representing The Dow Chemical Company in a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide. Obtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a private equity fund and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant. Representing a major financial institution in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR. Served as trial counsel for a publicly traded medical technology company in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause. Representing a Big Four accounting firm in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East. First-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of a major Chinese solar panel manufacturer against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue. Represented the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) in a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia. First-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of a major U.S. manufacturing company against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client. Acted as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against Union Carbide Corporation alleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant. Previously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for Union Carbide Corporation in relation to its substantial asbestos docket. Represented PricewaterhouseCoopers in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial. Secured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against PricewaterhouseCoopers alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.","searchable_name":"Alvin Lee","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":426372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3032,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office.\u0026nbsp; She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.\u0026nbsp; She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.\u0026nbsp; She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.\u0026nbsp; She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.\u0026nbsp; She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathryn-lehman","email":"klehman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company \u003c/em\u003e(three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWebb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.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":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lehman","nick_name":"Kathryn","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathryn","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office.\u0026nbsp; She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.\u0026nbsp; She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.\u0026nbsp; She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.\u0026nbsp; She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.\u0026nbsp; She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company \u003c/em\u003e(three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWebb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":991}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:01.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Lehman{{ FIELD }}Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Kogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Shulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Gray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Webb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).{{ FIELD }}Banks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Clark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases) (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).{{ FIELD }}Cumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Kathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Atlanta office.  She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.  Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.  She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.\nMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.  Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.  She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.  She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial. \nMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.  She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument. Partner North Carolina State University  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Florida Georgia Massachusetts North Carolina Nevada Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict). Kogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict). Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict). Shulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict). Gray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict). Webb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%). Banks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict). Clark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict). In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases) (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013). Cumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).","searchable_name":"Kathryn S. Lehman","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":444238,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5746,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65. Mike is a\u0026nbsp;leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California\u0026rsquo;s unfair business practices statute.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\"\u0026nbsp;Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite,\u0026nbsp;California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May\u0026nbsp;2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,\u0026rdquo; California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA\u0026rsquo;s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \u0026ldquo;Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChair, \u0026ldquo;The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,\u0026rdquo; 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"michael-leslie","email":"mleslie@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSubstituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million\u0026mdash;raised to more than $120 million at trial\u0026mdash;and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume\u0026mdash;after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike\u0026rsquo;s successful appeal\u0026mdash;was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s pretrial settlement demand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California\u0026rsquo;s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike\u0026rsquo;s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage\u0026rsquo;s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration\u0026mdash;including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling denying arbitration\u0026mdash;the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors\u0026rsquo; claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly represents potentially responsible parties (\u0026ldquo;PRPs\u0026rdquo;) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3637}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1488,"guid":"1488.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Leslie","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, Central District of California","years_held":"1985 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1904,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1985-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles","detail":"2016, 2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation","detail":"Band 3"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial","detail":"2018-present"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2004–present"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell ","detail":"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Michael R. Leslie is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65. Mike is a\u0026nbsp;leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California\u0026rsquo;s unfair business practices statute.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\"\u0026nbsp;Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite,\u0026nbsp;California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May\u0026nbsp;2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,\u0026rdquo; California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA\u0026rsquo;s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \u0026ldquo;Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChair, \u0026ldquo;The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,\u0026rdquo; 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSubstituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million\u0026mdash;raised to more than $120 million at trial\u0026mdash;and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume\u0026mdash;after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike\u0026rsquo;s successful appeal\u0026mdash;was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s pretrial settlement demand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California\u0026rsquo;s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike\u0026rsquo;s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage\u0026rsquo;s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration\u0026mdash;including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling denying arbitration\u0026mdash;the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors\u0026rsquo; claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly represents potentially responsible parties (\u0026ldquo;PRPs\u0026rdquo;) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles","detail":"2016, 2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation","detail":"Band 3"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial","detail":"2018-present"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2004–present"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell ","detail":"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8089}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Leslie{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Band 3\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2004–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated\"}{{ FIELD }}Substituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General’s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer’s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client’s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million—raised to more than $120 million at trial—and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume—after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike’s successful appeal—was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff’s pretrial settlement demand.{{ FIELD }}Represented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.{{ FIELD }}Represented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California’s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike’s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.{{ FIELD }}Represented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage’s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration—including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court’s ruling denying arbitration—the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors’ claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.{{ FIELD }}In a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff’s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.{{ FIELD }}Regularly represents potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.{{ FIELD }}Mike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California’s Proposition 65. Mike is a leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California’s unfair business practices statute. \nMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\n\nSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\nSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\nModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\nSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\" Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\nModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\nModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021) \nModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021) \nSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\nSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May 2016)\nModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\nSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015) \nSpeaker, “Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,” California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\nSpeaker, “Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA’s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,” Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\nSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\nSpeaker, “CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,” 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\nSpeaker and Moderator, “Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,” 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\nChair, “The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,” 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\nSpeaker, “Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,” Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\nSpeaker, “Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,” 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\nSpeaker, “Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,” Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\n Michael Leslie lawyer Partner Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles 2016, 2024 Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation 2013–present Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation Band 3 Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial 2018-present Southern California Super Lawyers  2004–present Martindale-Hubbell  AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated Dartmouth College  Stanford University Stanford Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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 Co-Chair, American Bar Association Litigation Section's Mass Environmental/Toxic Torts Subcommittee (2009–present) Executive Committee, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (2014–2017); Treasurer (2016–2017); Advisor (2017-present) Chair, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section (2018); Vice-Chair, Treasurer (2014-2017); Executive Committee (2006–present) Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association – Litigation and Environmental Law Sections Member, American Bar Association – Litigation Section Member, Federal Bar Association Member, California Lawyers Association Executive Committee, American Bar Association, Energy \u0026amp; Environmental Litigation Committee (2009-present) Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, Central District of California Substituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General’s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer’s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case. Obtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client’s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects. Represented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million—raised to more than $120 million at trial—and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume—after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike’s successful appeal—was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff’s pretrial settlement demand. Represented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year. Represented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California’s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs. Won summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress. Won summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike’s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled. Represented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage’s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration—including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court’s ruling denying arbitration—the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors’ claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses. In a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff’s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation. Regularly represents potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.","searchable_name":"Michael R. Leslie","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":436380,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2630,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAntonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.\u0026nbsp; He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"antonio-lewis","email":"alewis@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":187}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lewis","nick_name":"Antonio","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Antonio","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named North Carolina Rising Star ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019"},{"title":"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow","detail":"2016, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewisantonio","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAntonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.\u0026nbsp; He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named North Carolina Rising Star ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019"},{"title":"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow","detail":"2016, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9763}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Lewis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named North Carolina Rising Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Antonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.  He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\nAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.  He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.\nAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations. Antonio E Lewis Partner Named North Carolina Rising Star  Super Lawyers, 2014-2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow 2016, 2022 Duke University Duke University School of Law Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Florida North Carolina North Carolina Bar Association","searchable_name":"Antonio E. Lewis","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":444841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6195,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.\u0026nbsp; Mike also represents\u0026nbsp;clients in investigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-lombardo","email":"mlombardo@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lombardo","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"Juris Doctor","honors":"honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2016-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Anthony","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.\u0026nbsp; Mike also represents\u0026nbsp;clients in investigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9428}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T15:46:33.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T15:46:33.000Z","searchable_text":"Lombardo{{ FIELD }}Mike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.  Mike also represents clients in investigation matters. Partner Northwestern University Northwestern Pritzker School of Law University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Illinois","searchable_name":"Michael Anthony Lombardo (Mike)","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":444976,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1066,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.\u0026nbsp; He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Construction Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-ledet","email":"cledet@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 713 206 0517","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConstruction\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant\u0026rsquo;s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors\u0026rsquo; failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"BulletList\"\u003eRepresented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEngineering Defects\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner\u0026rsquo;s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMiscellaneous Torts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ledet","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\" ","detail":"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked in construction litigation ","detail":"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers"},{"title":"Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\" ","detail":"Super Lawyers"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/craig-ledet-6918659/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":77,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.\u0026nbsp; He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Construction Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConstruction\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant\u0026rsquo;s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors\u0026rsquo; failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"BulletList\"\u003eRepresented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEngineering Defects\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner\u0026rsquo;s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMiscellaneous Torts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\" ","detail":"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked in construction litigation ","detail":"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers"},{"title":"Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\" ","detail":"Super Lawyers"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":987}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-12T22:08:58.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-12T22:08:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Ledet{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a U.S. \\\"Litigation Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in construction litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a \\\"Texas Super Lawyer\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}ConstructionRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant’s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors’ failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;{{ FIELD }}Representing a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;{{ FIELD }}Recovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.{{ FIELD }}Represented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.{{ FIELD }}Engineering DefectsRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner’s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.{{ FIELD }}Miscellaneous Torts\nRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.{{ FIELD }}Represented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Craig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.\nCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.  He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\nCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who’s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World’s Leading Construction Lawyers. Senior Counsel Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\"  2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017 Ranked in construction litigation  The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\"  Super Lawyers Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center University of Houston University of Houston Law Center Texas State Bar of Texas, American Bar Association, Houston Bar Association, Houston Young Lawyers Association ConstructionRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant’s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors’ failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room; Representing a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced; Recovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Represented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues. Represented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor. Represented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms. Represented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases. Represented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion Represented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform. Represented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay. Represented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility. Represented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor. Represented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana. Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs. Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project. Represented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work. Represented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia. Represented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan. Represented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma. Represented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project. Engineering DefectsRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station. Represented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner’s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing. Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict. Miscellaneous Torts\nRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class. Represented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial. Represented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations. Represented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company. Represented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Craig J. Ledet","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":428597,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6244,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Lancaster is a Senior Associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Jennifer has experience representing\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other consumer products manufacturers, in high-stakes mass tort and complex commercial\u0026nbsp;litigation, managing all aspects of case development.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jennifer-lancaster","email":"jlancaster@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3875}]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lancaster","nick_name":"Jennifer","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jennifer","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Marie","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Jennifer Marie Lancaster is a lawyer of our Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Lancaster is a Senior Associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Jennifer has experience representing\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other consumer products manufacturers, in high-stakes mass tort and complex commercial\u0026nbsp;litigation, managing all aspects of case development.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9684}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-06-03T18:36:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-06-03T18:36:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Lancaster{{ FIELD }}Jennifer Lancaster is a Senior Associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Jennifer has experience representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other consumer products manufacturers, in high-stakes mass tort and complex commercial litigation, managing all aspects of case development.\n  Jennifer Marie Lancaster lawyer Senior Associate U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Illinois Missouri Texas","searchable_name":"Jennifer Marie Lancaster","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":427536,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":453,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd Logan is a Senior Staff attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding's E-Discovery practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on the defense of product liability, toxic tort, and False Claims Act cases.\u0026nbsp; He has developed particular expertise in managing electronic discovery in large-scale, multi-jurisdiction litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"edward-logan","email":"elogan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging the discovery process on-site for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 manufacturing company including custodial interviews, drafting of discovery responses, document collection, document production, 30(b)(6) witness preparation, and fact witness preparation involving over 1.5 million documents and electronic data from hundreds of computer systems.\u0026nbsp; Successfully defended client\u0026rsquo;s document production process in US District Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a pharmaceutical manufacturer as part of a King \u0026amp; Spalding team serving as national co-counsel and trial counsel in nationwide litigation.\u0026nbsp; Created and managed document depository consisting of five million pages of company documents and privilege logs in excess of twenty thousand entries.\u0026nbsp; Provided declarations and affidavits successfully defending the document production process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review and production of documents from 50 custodians in a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 100 company in response to a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the review of over 1 million electronic and paper documents for an international pharmaceutical client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOrganizing rapid risk analysis of 10,000 federal filings in advance of proposed acquisition by a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eExperience creating project plans, selecting vendors and developing review protocols.\u0026nbsp; He has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, iConect, Datacon EED Discovery Partner, Summation iBlaze, Ringtail, Concordance, IPro and Microsoft Access.\u003cbr /\u003eEd\u0026nbsp;received his J.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.\u0026nbsp; He graduated from Syracuse University \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e in 1999.\u0026nbsp; He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, as well as the Atlanta Bar Association and the American Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Logan","nick_name":"Ed","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Edward","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":76,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd Logan is a Senior Staff attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding's E-Discovery practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on the defense of product liability, toxic tort, and False Claims Act cases.\u0026nbsp; He has developed particular expertise in managing electronic discovery in large-scale, multi-jurisdiction litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging the discovery process on-site for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 manufacturing company including custodial interviews, drafting of discovery responses, document collection, document production, 30(b)(6) witness preparation, and fact witness preparation involving over 1.5 million documents and electronic data from hundreds of computer systems.\u0026nbsp; Successfully defended client\u0026rsquo;s document production process in US District Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a pharmaceutical manufacturer as part of a King \u0026amp; Spalding team serving as national co-counsel and trial counsel in nationwide litigation.\u0026nbsp; Created and managed document depository consisting of five million pages of company documents and privilege logs in excess of twenty thousand entries.\u0026nbsp; Provided declarations and affidavits successfully defending the document production process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review and production of documents from 50 custodians in a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 100 company in response to a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the review of over 1 million electronic and paper documents for an international pharmaceutical client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOrganizing rapid risk analysis of 10,000 federal filings in advance of proposed acquisition by a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eExperience creating project plans, selecting vendors and developing review protocols.\u0026nbsp; He has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, iConect, Datacon EED Discovery Partner, Summation iBlaze, Ringtail, Concordance, IPro and Microsoft Access.\u003cbr /\u003eEd\u0026nbsp;received his J.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.\u0026nbsp; He graduated from Syracuse University \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e in 1999.\u0026nbsp; He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, as well as the Atlanta Bar Association and the American Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1008}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Logan{{ FIELD }}Managing the discovery process on-site for a Fortune 50 manufacturing company including custodial interviews, drafting of discovery responses, document collection, document production, 30(b)(6) witness preparation, and fact witness preparation involving over 1.5 million documents and electronic data from hundreds of computer systems.  Successfully defended client’s document production process in US District Court.{{ FIELD }}Defending a pharmaceutical manufacturer as part of a King \u0026amp; Spalding team serving as national co-counsel and trial counsel in nationwide litigation.  Created and managed document depository consisting of five million pages of company documents and privilege logs in excess of twenty thousand entries.  Provided declarations and affidavits successfully defending the document production process.{{ FIELD }}Managing the collection, review and production of documents from 50 custodians in a Fortune 100 company in response to a government subpoena.{{ FIELD }}Managing the review of over 1 million electronic and paper documents for an international pharmaceutical client.{{ FIELD }}Organizing rapid risk analysis of 10,000 federal filings in advance of proposed acquisition by a Fortune 50 company.\n {{ FIELD }}Litigation Technology Experience: Experience creating project plans, selecting vendors and developing review protocols.  He has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, iConect, Datacon EED Discovery Partner, Summation iBlaze, Ringtail, Concordance, IPro and Microsoft Access.Ed received his J.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.  He graduated from Syracuse University magna cum laude in 1999.  He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, as well as the Atlanta Bar Association and the American Bar Association.{{ FIELD }}Ed Logan is a Senior Staff attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding's E-Discovery practice.  His practice focuses primarily on the defense of product liability, toxic tort, and False Claims Act cases.  He has developed particular expertise in managing electronic discovery in large-scale, multi-jurisdiction litigation. Senior Attorney University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Syracuse University Syracuse University College of Law Georgia Managing the discovery process on-site for a Fortune 50 manufacturing company including custodial interviews, drafting of discovery responses, document collection, document production, 30(b)(6) witness preparation, and fact witness preparation involving over 1.5 million documents and electronic data from hundreds of computer systems.  Successfully defended client’s document production process in US District Court. Defending a pharmaceutical manufacturer as part of a King \u0026amp; Spalding team serving as national co-counsel and trial counsel in nationwide litigation.  Created and managed document depository consisting of five million pages of company documents and privilege logs in excess of twenty thousand entries.  Provided declarations and affidavits successfully defending the document production process. Managing the collection, review and production of documents from 50 custodians in a Fortune 100 company in response to a government subpoena. Managing the review of over 1 million electronic and paper documents for an international pharmaceutical client. Organizing rapid risk analysis of 10,000 federal filings in advance of proposed acquisition by a Fortune 50 company.\n  Litigation Technology Experience: Experience creating project plans, selecting vendors and developing review protocols.  He has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, iConect, Datacon EED Discovery Partner, Summation iBlaze, Ringtail, Concordance, IPro and Microsoft Access.Ed received his J.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.  He graduated from Syracuse University magna cum laude in 1999.  He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, as well as the Atlanta Bar Association and the American Bar Association.","searchable_name":"Edward T. Logan (Ed)","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}]}}