{"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":"17","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"A","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427537,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":456,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGreg Antine is an attorney with the firm\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery practice. His practice focuses on electronic discovery issues, particularly with respect to the representation of banking, healthcare, medical device, automotive, energy and consumer products clients in government investigations and complex litigation. Greg has managed discovery for a wide variety of clients and advises them on developing defensible, cost-effective strategies tailored to the needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg has significant experience managing e-discovery that spans industries such as product liabilities, securities, environmental issues and mass torts, as well as high-stakes governmental and internal investigations initiated by agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg works with case teams and clients at developing defensible, cost-effective discovery strategies tailored to the specific needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production. He works closely with in-house counsel, co-counsel, technology service providers and vendor partners to ensure consistency, efficiency and quality across all phases of the discovery lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg received his J.D. from Tulane Law School, graduating, cum laude, in 2001. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in both history and government in 1998.\u0026nbsp; He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,\u0026rdquo; co-author with Dan H. Willoughby, Jr. and Rose Hunter Jones, Duke Law Journal, Volume 60, Number 3 (December 2010), surveying 400 federal court opinions involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information and analyzed for date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel and protections provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The article was cited by Magistrate Judge Grimm in \u003cem\u003eVictor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 250 FRD 251 (D. Md. 2010) as evidence of the lack of uniform national standards governing the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, the level of culpability needed to justify sanctions, and the appropriate sanctions for varying levels of misconduct.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"gregory-antine","email":"gantine@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.\u0026nbsp; Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 consumer products company.\u0026nbsp; This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.\u0026nbsp; The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.\u0026nbsp; This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.\u0026nbsp; This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.\u0026nbsp; This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.\u0026nbsp; This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.\u0026nbsp; Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 energy client.\u0026nbsp; This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 pharmaceutical client.\u0026nbsp; This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in three weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience: \u003c/strong\u003eExtensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.\u0026nbsp; Due to Mr. Antine\u0026rsquo;s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young\u0026rsquo;s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Antine","nick_name":"Gregory","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Gregory","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGreg Antine is an attorney with the firm\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery practice. His practice focuses on electronic discovery issues, particularly with respect to the representation of banking, healthcare, medical device, automotive, energy and consumer products clients in government investigations and complex litigation. Greg has managed discovery for a wide variety of clients and advises them on developing defensible, cost-effective strategies tailored to the needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg has significant experience managing e-discovery that spans industries such as product liabilities, securities, environmental issues and mass torts, as well as high-stakes governmental and internal investigations initiated by agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg works with case teams and clients at developing defensible, cost-effective discovery strategies tailored to the specific needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production. He works closely with in-house counsel, co-counsel, technology service providers and vendor partners to ensure consistency, efficiency and quality across all phases of the discovery lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg received his J.D. from Tulane Law School, graduating, cum laude, in 2001. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in both history and government in 1998.\u0026nbsp; He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,\u0026rdquo; co-author with Dan H. Willoughby, Jr. and Rose Hunter Jones, Duke Law Journal, Volume 60, Number 3 (December 2010), surveying 400 federal court opinions involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information and analyzed for date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel and protections provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The article was cited by Magistrate Judge Grimm in \u003cem\u003eVictor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 250 FRD 251 (D. Md. 2010) as evidence of the lack of uniform national standards governing the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, the level of culpability needed to justify sanctions, and the appropriate sanctions for varying levels of misconduct.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.\u0026nbsp; Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 consumer products company.\u0026nbsp; This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.\u0026nbsp; The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.\u0026nbsp; This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.\u0026nbsp; This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.\u0026nbsp; This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.\u0026nbsp; This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.\u0026nbsp; Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 energy client.\u0026nbsp; This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 pharmaceutical client.\u0026nbsp; This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in three weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience: \u003c/strong\u003eExtensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.\u0026nbsp; Due to Mr. Antine\u0026rsquo;s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young\u0026rsquo;s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4539}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Antine{{ FIELD }}Managing over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.  Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request. {{ FIELD }}Managing over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a Fortune 50 consumer products company.  This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.{{ FIELD }}Managing the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.  The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.  The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.{{ FIELD }}Supervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.{{ FIELD }}Managing 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.  This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.{{ FIELD }}Managing and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.  This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.  This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Supervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.  This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.{{ FIELD }}Managing multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.  Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.{{ FIELD }}Managing fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a Fortune 50 energy client.  This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality. {{ FIELD }}Managing fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical client.  This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in three weeks.{{ FIELD }}Litigation Technology Experience: Extensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.  Due to Mr. Antine’s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.  He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.  Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young’s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.{{ FIELD }}Greg Antine is an attorney with the firm’s E-Discovery practice. His practice focuses on electronic discovery issues, particularly with respect to the representation of banking, healthcare, medical device, automotive, energy and consumer products clients in government investigations and complex litigation. Greg has managed discovery for a wide variety of clients and advises them on developing defensible, cost-effective strategies tailored to the needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production. \nGreg has significant experience managing e-discovery that spans industries such as product liabilities, securities, environmental issues and mass torts, as well as high-stakes governmental and internal investigations initiated by agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.\nGreg works with case teams and clients at developing defensible, cost-effective discovery strategies tailored to the specific needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production. He works closely with in-house counsel, co-counsel, technology service providers and vendor partners to ensure consistency, efficiency and quality across all phases of the discovery lifecycle.\nGreg received his J.D. from Tulane Law School, graduating, cum laude, in 2001. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in both history and government in 1998.  He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.\nPublications\n\n“Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,” co-author with Dan H. Willoughby, Jr. and Rose Hunter Jones, Duke Law Journal, Volume 60, Number 3 (December 2010), surveying 400 federal court opinions involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information and analyzed for date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel and protections provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The article was cited by Magistrate Judge Grimm in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 FRD 251 (D. Md. 2010) as evidence of the lack of uniform national standards governing the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, the level of culpability needed to justify sanctions, and the appropriate sanctions for varying levels of misconduct.\n Counsel University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School Georgia Managing over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.  Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.  Managing over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a Fortune 50 consumer products company.  This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract. Managing the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.  The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.  The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines. Supervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request. Managing 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.  This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance. Managing and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.  This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.  This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions. Supervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.  This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks. Managing multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.  Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files. Managing fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a Fortune 50 energy client.  This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  Managing fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical client.  This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in three weeks. Litigation Technology Experience: Extensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.  Due to Mr. Antine’s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.  He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.  Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young’s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.","searchable_name":"Gregory R. Antine","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":447817,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5216,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCristina Azcoitia is a senior\u0026nbsp;associate\u0026nbsp;in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Product Liability and Mass Torts group. Her practice focuses on toxic and environmental torts. Cristina uses her background to assist clients in navigating complex technical and scientific issues that arise through the course of litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCristina earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2019 and her B.S. in Cellular and Molecular Biology from Auburn University in 2015. She is passionate about serving the local and global community through pro bono and volunteer work. Cristina also actively participates in the firm's diversity initiatives as a member of the firm's Latino affinity group.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"cristina-azcoitia","email":"cazcoitia@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Azcoitia","nick_name":"Cristina","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Cristina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2019-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCristina Azcoitia is a senior\u0026nbsp;associate\u0026nbsp;in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Product Liability and Mass Torts group. Her practice focuses on toxic and environmental torts. Cristina uses her background to assist clients in navigating complex technical and scientific issues that arise through the course of litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCristina earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2019 and her B.S. in Cellular and Molecular Biology from Auburn University in 2015. She is passionate about serving the local and global community through pro bono and volunteer work. Cristina also actively participates in the firm's diversity initiatives as a member of the firm's Latino affinity group.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11779}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-24T19:48:33.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-24T19:48:33.000Z","searchable_text":"Azcoitia{{ FIELD }}Cristina Azcoitia is a senior associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Product Liability and Mass Torts group. Her practice focuses on toxic and environmental torts. Cristina uses her background to assist clients in navigating complex technical and scientific issues that arise through the course of litigation. \nCristina earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2019 and her B.S. in Cellular and Molecular Biology from Auburn University in 2015. She is passionate about serving the local and global community through pro bono and volunteer work. Cristina also actively participates in the firm's diversity initiatives as a member of the firm's Latino affinity group. Senior Associate Auburn University  Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia","searchable_name":"Cristina Azcoitia","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":441908,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7254,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation. She has been involved with a variety of complex matters in both state and federal courts, including multidistrict litigations (\"MDLs\") and mass torts. Sandra\u0026rsquo;s product liability litigation experience includes case strategizing based on medical records, drafting motions, and working hand-in-hand with expert witnesses in various scientific and professional fields. In addition, Sandra has been involved in the preparation of pharmaceutical risk assessments for various clients. While in law School, Sandra worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey whose docket included may pharmaceutical and medical device related matters.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sandra-applebaum","email":"sapplebaum@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":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Applebaum","nick_name":"Sandra","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Hon. Claire Cecchi, New Jersey","years_held":"2018 - 2018"}],"first_name":"Sandra","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1790,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"M.D.","recognitions":[{"title":"Awarded Excellence in Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Seton Hall University School of Law 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation. She has been involved with a variety of complex matters in both state and federal courts, including multidistrict litigations (\"MDLs\") and mass torts. Sandra\u0026rsquo;s product liability litigation experience includes case strategizing based on medical records, drafting motions, and working hand-in-hand with expert witnesses in various scientific and professional fields. In addition, Sandra has been involved in the preparation of pharmaceutical risk assessments for various clients. While in law School, Sandra worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey whose docket included may pharmaceutical and medical device related matters.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Awarded Excellence in Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Seton Hall University School of Law 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13083}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-03T22:01:54.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-03T22:01:54.000Z","searchable_text":"Applebaum{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Awarded Excellence in Intellectual Property Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Seton Hall University School of Law 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Sandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation. \nSandra Applebaum, M.D., is a member of the Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s New York office. With more than seventeen years practicing allergy medicine as a licensed physician, she began a career in law focusing her practice on the representation and defense of manufacturers in products liability litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, and health care litigation. She has been involved with a variety of complex matters in both state and federal courts, including multidistrict litigations (\"MDLs\") and mass torts. Sandra’s product liability litigation experience includes case strategizing based on medical records, drafting motions, and working hand-in-hand with expert witnesses in various scientific and professional fields. In addition, Sandra has been involved in the preparation of pharmaceutical risk assessments for various clients. While in law School, Sandra worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey whose docket included may pharmaceutical and medical device related matters. Associate Awarded Excellence in Intellectual Property Law Seton Hall University School of Law 2020 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois College of Law Seton Hall University Seton Hall University School of Law Albert Einstein College of Medicine  U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey New Jersey New York Intern, Hon. Claire Cecchi, New Jersey","searchable_name":"Sandra Applebaum, M.D.","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":426837,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5727,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Adovasio is a Senior Attorney\u0026nbsp;in the Data, Privacy, and Security group\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C.\u0026nbsp;office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy's practice\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex, multi-party disputes, complex business litigation, data privacy, and compliance and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amy-adovasio","email":"aadovasio@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Adovasio","nick_name":"Amy","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Edwin M. Kosik, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","years_held":"2011 - 2013"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Multiple Judges, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","years_held":"2013 - 2014"}],"first_name":"Amy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":76,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Adovasio is a Senior Attorney\u0026nbsp;in the Data, Privacy, and Security group\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C.\u0026nbsp;office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy's practice\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex, multi-party disputes, complex business litigation, data privacy, and compliance and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8316}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Adovasio{{ FIELD }}Amy Adovasio is a Senior Attorney in the Data, Privacy, and Security group in the Washington, D.C. office. \nAmy's practice focuses on complex, multi-party disputes, complex business litigation, data privacy, and compliance and regulatory matters. Senior Attorney Mercyhurst College  Ohio Northern University Law School Ohio Northern University Law School District of Columbia Pennsylvania Law Clerk, Honorable Edwin M. Kosik, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Law Clerk, Multiple Judges, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","searchable_name":"Amy L. Adovasio","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427695,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1591,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJames Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He\u0026nbsp;has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecognition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"james-andrews","email":"jandrews@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eIdentifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a \u003cem\u003eQui Tam\u003c/em\u003e action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Andrews","nick_name":"James","clerkships":[],"first_name":"James","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":89,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJames Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He\u0026nbsp;has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecognition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eIdentifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a \u003cem\u003eQui Tam\u003c/em\u003e action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4181}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:50.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:50.000Z","searchable_text":"Andrews{{ FIELD }}Identifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.{{ FIELD }}Supervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a Qui Tam action.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit. {{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.{{ FIELD }}Litigation Technology Experience\nMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.{{ FIELD }}James Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding’s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\n\nJames has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\nRecognition\n\nPanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\n Attorney Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Identifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process. Supervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a Qui Tam action. Leading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena. Leading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim. Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.  Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims. Litigation Technology Experience\nMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.","searchable_name":"James M. Andrews","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}]}}