{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"2","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445539,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6785,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dana-berkowitz","email":"dberkowitz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3251}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Berkowitz","nick_name":"Dana","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dana","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Dana is a lawyer at King \u0026 Spalding's New York Office. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11963}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Berkowitz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in \\\"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 and Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"New York Law Journal, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.{{ FIELD }}Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.{{ FIELD }}Dana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in a variety of high-stakes matters, including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings, and commercial litigation and arbitration.  She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf.  Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare.  Chambers USA describes her as “the full package” and “a gifted litigator and strategist” who is “knowledgeable and solutions-based.”  Legal500 calls Dana “a superlative advocate and tactician.”\nDana has a long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.  Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.  Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.  Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\nDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.  For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.  In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.  And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.  Dana has also briefed and argued high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\nSince 2022, Chambers USA has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.  Legal500 says that she is “unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.”  Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in Benchmark Litigation and New York Law Journal.  Dana Berkowitz lawyer Partner \"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\" Legal 500, 2025 \"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\" Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\" Chambers USA, 2022-25 Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 40 and Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024 Rising Star New York Law Journal, 2018 Princeton University  Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California California New York American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer. Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees. Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms. Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff. Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss. In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client. Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss. Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.","searchable_name":"Dana Berkowitz","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":442372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":883,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-brown","email":"mbrown@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":51}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brown","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":746}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Brown{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Life Sciences Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Superior Achievement Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendable Service Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA, 1992–1994\"}{{ FIELD }}Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.{{ FIELD }}United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.{{ FIELD }}During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006).{{ FIELD }}Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.{{ FIELD }}From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.{{ FIELD }}Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.{{ FIELD }}Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.{{ FIELD }}Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.{{ FIELD }}Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.{{ FIELD }}Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.{{ FIELD }}Mark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\nMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\nMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\nBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients. Mark S Brown Partner Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney  Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017 Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S.  Legal 500, 2016 Named Life Sciences Star  LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016 Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers  Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016 Superior Achievement Award  U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992 Commendable Service Award  FDA, 1992–1994 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School St. Louis University  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products. United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs. During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006). Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil. From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues. Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine. Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award. Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation. Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure. Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas. Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making. Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues. Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues. Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement. Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product. Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments. Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices. Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.","searchable_name":"Mark S. Brown","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":445658,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":679,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-p-brumbaugh","email":"pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 664 2726","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":10}]},"expertise":[{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":684,"guid":"684.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":685,"guid":"685.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":686,"guid":"686.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brumbaugh","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"1997 - 1998"}],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":119,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4193}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Brumbaugh{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition.{{ FIELD }}Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.{{ FIELD }}Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.{{ FIELD }}Pat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat’s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.\nPat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other “Big Law” law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\nPat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Co-General Counsel. John Pat Brumbaugh Partner / General Counsel Dartmouth College  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia The Florida Bar Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment. Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation. Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice. Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation. Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company. Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition. Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks. Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.","searchable_name":"John P. Brumbaugh","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":427629,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1020,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-bucholtz","email":"jbucholtz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":105}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bucholtz","nick_name":"Jeffrey","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","years_held":"1996 - 1997"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":749}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Bucholtz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Green Bag, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Lawyer, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.{{ FIELD }}Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.{{ FIELD }}Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.{{ FIELD }}A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.{{ FIELD }}Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.{{ FIELD }}Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.{{ FIELD }}Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.{{ FIELD }}R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.{{ FIELD }}GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.{{ FIELD }}A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.{{ FIELD }}Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.{{ FIELD }}PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.{{ FIELD }}A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.{{ FIELD }}Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims.{{ FIELD }}GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.{{ FIELD }}A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.{{ FIELD }}A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.{{ FIELD }}A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.{{ FIELD }}Jeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nPreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\nJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy. Jeffrey S Bucholtz Partner Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice  Legal 500, 2015 Practice of the Year, Appellate practice  Law360, 2014 Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief  Green Bag, 2013 Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media  American Lawyer, 2015 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion. Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP. Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador. A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award. Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations. Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions. Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs. R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri. GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims. A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction. A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case. Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments. PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor. Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors. A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration. Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification. Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims. GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute. A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case. A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC. A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.","searchable_name":"Jeffrey S. Bucholtz","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427549,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":613,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General\u0026rsquo;s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christopher-burris","email":"cburris@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean elected state official\u003c/strong\u003e during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a large privately held manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor\u003c/strong\u003e in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect \u0026ldquo;usual and customary\u0026rdquo; prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national skilled nursing facility chain\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation focusing on quality of care issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal review for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international nongovernmenta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003el organization\u003c/strong\u003e regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 500 financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P\u0026rsquo;s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 healthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to a data security incident \u0026mdash; and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation \u0026mdash; involving the theft of customers\u0026rsquo; personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international telecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company\u0026rsquo;s alleged cooperation with the TSP.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":24}]},"expertise":[{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burris","nick_name":"Chris","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christopher","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General\u0026rsquo;s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean elected state official\u003c/strong\u003e during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a large privately held manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor\u003c/strong\u003e in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect \u0026ldquo;usual and customary\u0026rdquo; prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national skilled nursing facility chain\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation focusing on quality of care issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal review for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international nongovernmenta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003el organization\u003c/strong\u003e regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 500 financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P\u0026rsquo;s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 healthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to a data security incident \u0026mdash; and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation \u0026mdash; involving the theft of customers\u0026rsquo; personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international telecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company\u0026rsquo;s alleged cooperation with the TSP.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4195}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Burris{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international financial institution in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large publicly traded manufacturing company in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.{{ FIELD }}Represented an elected state official during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.{{ FIELD }}Represented an owner of a large privately held manufacturing company in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented an owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.{{ FIELD }}Represented numerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains in multiple False Claims Act /qui tam matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect “usual and customary” prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major national financial institution in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major national skilled nursing facility chain in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation focusing on quality of care issues.{{ FIELD }}Conducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal review for an international nongovernmental organization regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large publicly traded corporation in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 500 financial services company in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P’s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 100 healthcare company in responding to a data security incident — and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation — involving the theft of customers’ personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international telecommunications company in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company’s alleged cooperation with the TSP.{{ FIELD }}Chris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.\nAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/qui tam matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\nIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\nPreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law. Christopher C Burris Partner Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court of the United States U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Georgia North Carolina Represented a major international financial institution in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme. Represented a large publicly traded manufacturing company in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations. Represented an elected state official during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed. Represented an owner of a large privately held manufacturing company in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation. Represented an owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs. Represented numerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains in multiple False Claims Act /qui tam matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect “usual and customary” prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs. Represented a major national financial institution in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program. Represented a major national skilled nursing facility chain in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation focusing on quality of care issues. Conducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs. Conducted an internal review for an international nongovernmental organization regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government. Represented a large publicly traded corporation in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company. Represented a Fortune 500 financial services company in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P’s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information. Represented a Fortune 100 healthcare company in responding to a data security incident — and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation — involving the theft of customers’ personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes. Represented a major international telecommunications company in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company’s alleged cooperation with the TSP.","searchable_name":"Christopher C. Burris (Chris)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426829,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5863,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristine M. Carletta is a\u0026nbsp;partner in the Washington, D.C. office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. As\u0026nbsp;a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Appellate, Constitutional, and Administrative Law practice group, Christine develops creative litigation strategies to best serve her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives through all phases of litigation and appeal. Christine\u0026rsquo;s extensive experience covers a broad range of subjects including\u0026nbsp;Medicare and Medicaid regulation, Food and Drug Administration regulation, the False Claims Act, fraud and abuse matters, state and federal privacy laws, securities regulations, contract disputes, consumer protection claims, and\u0026nbsp;class actions.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christine served as a law clerk to the Honorable Chad A Readler, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. She received her J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of\u0026nbsp;the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christine-carletta","email":"ccarletta@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Carletta","nick_name":"Christine","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Chad A. Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2019 - 2020"},{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable James C. Mahan, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada","years_held":"2015 - 2016"}],"first_name":"Christine","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"Juris Doctor","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristine M. Carletta is a\u0026nbsp;partner in the Washington, D.C. office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. As\u0026nbsp;a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Appellate, Constitutional, and Administrative Law practice group, Christine develops creative litigation strategies to best serve her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives through all phases of litigation and appeal. Christine\u0026rsquo;s extensive experience covers a broad range of subjects including\u0026nbsp;Medicare and Medicaid regulation, Food and Drug Administration regulation, the False Claims Act, fraud and abuse matters, state and federal privacy laws, securities regulations, contract disputes, consumer protection claims, and\u0026nbsp;class actions.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christine served as a law clerk to the Honorable Chad A Readler, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. She received her J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of\u0026nbsp;the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9711}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:14.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Carletta{{ FIELD }}Christine M. Carletta is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. As a member of the firm’s Appellate, Constitutional, and Administrative Law practice group, Christine develops creative litigation strategies to best serve her clients’ objectives through all phases of litigation and appeal. Christine’s extensive experience covers a broad range of subjects including Medicare and Medicaid regulation, Food and Drug Administration regulation, the False Claims Act, fraud and abuse matters, state and federal privacy laws, securities regulations, contract disputes, consumer protection claims, and class actions. \nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Christine served as a law clerk to the Honorable Chad A Readler, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. She received her J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.   Partner Bowdoin College  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois District of Columbia New York Law Clerk, The Honorable Chad A. Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Law Clerk, The Honorable James C. Mahan, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada","searchable_name":"Christine Carletta","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444009,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNeel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley\u0026rsquo;s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film \u0026ldquo;The Social Network.\u0026rdquo; He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being \u0026ldquo;singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;the ability to think outside the box\u0026rdquo; as well as having \u0026ldquo;in depth knowledge of patent law.\u0026rdquo; In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,\u0026rdquo; with providing \u0026ldquo;practical, business-minded patent advice\u0026rdquo; and a sensitivity \u0026ldquo;to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being \u0026ldquo;sought-after\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.\u0026rdquo; Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, \u0026ldquo;He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.\u0026rdquo; Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who \u0026ldquo;gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,\u0026rdquo; also remarking that \u0026ldquo;he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.\u0026rdquo; Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News \u0026mdash; Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, \u0026ldquo;Best Lawyers\u0026rdquo; named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California\u0026rsquo;s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair.\u0026nbsp;Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.\u0026nbsp; The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"neel-chatterjee","email":"nchatterjee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Chatterjee","nick_name":"","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Neel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Litigators in America ","detail":"Lawdragon 500 (2025)"},{"title":"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law","detail":"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets","detail":"Chambers USA (2022-2025)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Nationwide ","detail":"Chambers USA (2025)"},{"title":"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) "},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent","detail":"Global 2021 and 2022 "},{"title":"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Top IP litigator and trailblazer ","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNeel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley\u0026rsquo;s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film \u0026ldquo;The Social Network.\u0026rdquo; He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being \u0026ldquo;singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;the ability to think outside the box\u0026rdquo; as well as having \u0026ldquo;in depth knowledge of patent law.\u0026rdquo; In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,\u0026rdquo; with providing \u0026ldquo;practical, business-minded patent advice\u0026rdquo; and a sensitivity \u0026ldquo;to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being \u0026ldquo;sought-after\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.\u0026rdquo; Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, \u0026ldquo;He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.\u0026rdquo; Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who \u0026ldquo;gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,\u0026rdquo; also remarking that \u0026ldquo;he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.\u0026rdquo; Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News \u0026mdash; Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, \u0026ldquo;Best Lawyers\u0026rdquo; named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California\u0026rsquo;s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair.\u0026nbsp;Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.\u0026nbsp; The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Litigators in America ","detail":"Lawdragon 500 (2025)"},{"title":"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law","detail":"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets","detail":"Chambers USA (2022-2025)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Nationwide ","detail":"Chambers USA (2025)"},{"title":"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) "},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent","detail":"Global 2021 and 2022 "},{"title":"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Top IP litigator and trailblazer ","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12909}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:39.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Chatterjee{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Litigators in America \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon 500 (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2022-2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property – Nationwide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property: Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global 2021 and 2022 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top IP litigator and trailblazer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}Neel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world’s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues. \nNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley’s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film “The Social Network.” He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology. \nNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court. \nNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being “singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,” with “the ability to think outside the box” as well as having “in depth knowledge of patent law.” In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being “knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,” with providing “practical, business-minded patent advice” and a sensitivity “to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being “sought-after” and “valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.” Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, “He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.” Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who “gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,” also remarking that “he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.” Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News — Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, “Best Lawyers” named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California’s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.  Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education. \nNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair. Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.  The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers. Partner Leading Litigators in America  Lawdragon 500 (2025) Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law Best Lawyers (2022-2023) Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets Chambers USA (2022-2025) Intellectual Property – Nationwide  Chambers USA (2025) United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters) Legal 500 US (2021-2024)  Intellectual Property: Patent Global 2021 and 2022  2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property  Benchmark Litigation Top IP litigator and trailblazer  Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit California California Bar Association Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Board Member Asia Pacific Fund, Board Member National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association, Board Member Served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California Bay Area Diversity Career Fair, Founder","searchable_name":"Neel Chatterjee","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":443936,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6649,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGregory S. (Greg) Chernack has more than 20 years of practice focused on trial and appellate litigation involving complex legal issues with extensive experience handling pharmaceutical and mass tort litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country, including in California, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York. This work has resulted in numerous victories before, at, and following trial. He has also worked on a number of international matters in Ecuador and Mexico. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg\u0026rsquo;s work has concentrated on developing successful defenses to lawsuits around the country by, among other things, working with expert and company witnesses in preparation for trial and engaging in complex motions practice. This work has included the representation of pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturers in defending products liability lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, Greg represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation at numerous trials, including successfully arguing a motion for a directed verdict at the close of one, and has won a case on its behalf before the Sixth Circuit. Greg also represented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. That case ultimately went to trial in federal court in the District of Columbia with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work involving product liability cases, Greg has experience before the U.S. Supreme Court involving issues ranging from patent law to immigration regulations and other complex civil litigation matters. Greg also represented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.\u0026rsquo;s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and to the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was an Articles Editor of the \u003cem\u003eYale Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e and has been repeatedly invited to serve as a judge for the semifinals of the George Washington University Law School\u0026rsquo;s Van Vleck Moot Court Competition. Greg received his JD from Yale Law School.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"gregory-chernack","email":"gchernack@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of Monsanto in a case alleging that Roundup exposure caused the development of skin cancer in federal court in Louisiana.\u0026nbsp; After initially obtaining summary judgment on most of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims based upon the statute of limitations, his deposition of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; causation expert resulted in the exclusion of that expert and the entry of summary judgment on the entirety of the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in a Tegretol Innovator Liability case in the Fifth Circuit, affirming Novartis\u0026rsquo; summary judgment victory in \u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Novartis Pharm.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCorp.\u003c/em\u003e in the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable outcomes for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in numerous product liability trials regarding the medications Aredia and Zometa in multiple states, including North Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Missouri.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict at the end of a three week trial involving Zometa in the Eastern District of California representing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in \u003cem\u003eHill v. Novartis Pharm Corp.\u003c/em\u003e before the Honorable Jed Rakoff (visiting from S.D.N.Y.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. As many of the plaintiffs and witnesses were unable to travel to the US, he obtained their testimony in Ecuador. The case went to trial with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.\u0026rsquo;s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Chernack","nick_name":"Greg","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York","years_held":"1999 - 2000"}],"first_name":"Gregory","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Scott","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/greg-chernack-3691b21/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGregory S. (Greg) Chernack has more than 20 years of practice focused on trial and appellate litigation involving complex legal issues with extensive experience handling pharmaceutical and mass tort litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country, including in California, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York. This work has resulted in numerous victories before, at, and following trial. He has also worked on a number of international matters in Ecuador and Mexico. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg\u0026rsquo;s work has concentrated on developing successful defenses to lawsuits around the country by, among other things, working with expert and company witnesses in preparation for trial and engaging in complex motions practice. This work has included the representation of pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturers in defending products liability lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, Greg represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation at numerous trials, including successfully arguing a motion for a directed verdict at the close of one, and has won a case on its behalf before the Sixth Circuit. Greg also represented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. That case ultimately went to trial in federal court in the District of Columbia with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work involving product liability cases, Greg has experience before the U.S. Supreme Court involving issues ranging from patent law to immigration regulations and other complex civil litigation matters. Greg also represented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.\u0026rsquo;s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and to the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was an Articles Editor of the \u003cem\u003eYale Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e and has been repeatedly invited to serve as a judge for the semifinals of the George Washington University Law School\u0026rsquo;s Van Vleck Moot Court Competition. Greg received his JD from Yale Law School.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of Monsanto in a case alleging that Roundup exposure caused the development of skin cancer in federal court in Louisiana.\u0026nbsp; After initially obtaining summary judgment on most of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims based upon the statute of limitations, his deposition of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; causation expert resulted in the exclusion of that expert and the entry of summary judgment on the entirety of the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in a Tegretol Innovator Liability case in the Fifth Circuit, affirming Novartis\u0026rsquo; summary judgment victory in \u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Novartis Pharm.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCorp.\u003c/em\u003e in the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable outcomes for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in numerous product liability trials regarding the medications Aredia and Zometa in multiple states, including North Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Missouri.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict at the end of a three week trial involving Zometa in the Eastern District of California representing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in \u003cem\u003eHill v. Novartis Pharm Corp.\u003c/em\u003e before the Honorable Jed Rakoff (visiting from S.D.N.Y.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. As many of the plaintiffs and witnesses were unable to travel to the US, he obtained their testimony in Ecuador. The case went to trial with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.\u0026rsquo;s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11491}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:01:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:01:36.000Z","searchable_text":"Chernack{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Monsanto in a case alleging that Roundup exposure caused the development of skin cancer in federal court in Louisiana.  After initially obtaining summary judgment on most of plaintiffs’ claims based upon the statute of limitations, his deposition of plaintiffs’ causation expert resulted in the exclusion of that expert and the entry of summary judgment on the entirety of the case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in a Tegretol Innovator Liability case in the Fifth Circuit, affirming Novartis’ summary judgment victory in Johnson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. in the Western District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable outcomes for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in numerous product liability trials regarding the medications Aredia and Zometa in multiple states, including North Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Missouri. {{ FIELD }}Obtained a directed verdict at the end of a three week trial involving Zometa in the Eastern District of California representing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in Hill v. Novartis Pharm Corp. before the Honorable Jed Rakoff (visiting from S.D.N.Y.). {{ FIELD }}Represented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. As many of the plaintiffs and witnesses were unable to travel to the US, he obtained their testimony in Ecuador. The case went to trial with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.’s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.{{ FIELD }}Gregory S. (Greg) Chernack has more than 20 years of practice focused on trial and appellate litigation involving complex legal issues with extensive experience handling pharmaceutical and mass tort litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country, including in California, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York. This work has resulted in numerous victories before, at, and following trial. He has also worked on a number of international matters in Ecuador and Mexico. \nGreg’s work has concentrated on developing successful defenses to lawsuits around the country by, among other things, working with expert and company witnesses in preparation for trial and engaging in complex motions practice. This work has included the representation of pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturers in defending products liability lawsuits.\nNotably, Greg represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation at numerous trials, including successfully arguing a motion for a directed verdict at the close of one, and has won a case on its behalf before the Sixth Circuit. Greg also represented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. That case ultimately went to trial in federal court in the District of Columbia with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict.\nIn addition to his work involving product liability cases, Greg has experience before the U.S. Supreme Court involving issues ranging from patent law to immigration regulations and other complex civil litigation matters. Greg also represented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.’s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act. \nGreg previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and to the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was an Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal and has been repeatedly invited to serve as a judge for the semifinals of the George Washington University Law School’s Van Vleck Moot Court Competition. Greg received his JD from Yale Law School. Partner Harvard University Harvard Law School Oxford University, UK  Yale University Yale Law School Oxford University, UK  Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Arkansas District of Columbia New Jersey New York Chair, Town Council of Section 5 of the Village of Chevy Chase, Maryland Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School Former Chair, D.C. Public Library Foundation Law Clerk, Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Law Clerk, Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Monsanto in a case alleging that Roundup exposure caused the development of skin cancer in federal court in Louisiana.  After initially obtaining summary judgment on most of plaintiffs’ claims based upon the statute of limitations, his deposition of plaintiffs’ causation expert resulted in the exclusion of that expert and the entry of summary judgment on the entirety of the case. Successfully represented Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in a Tegretol Innovator Liability case in the Fifth Circuit, affirming Novartis’ summary judgment victory in Johnson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. in the Western District of Texas. Obtained favorable outcomes for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in numerous product liability trials regarding the medications Aredia and Zometa in multiple states, including North Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Missouri.  Obtained a directed verdict at the end of a three week trial involving Zometa in the Eastern District of California representing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in Hill v. Novartis Pharm Corp. before the Honorable Jed Rakoff (visiting from S.D.N.Y.).  Represented DynCorp International in a lawsuit brought against it by more than a thousand Ecuadoreans alleging personal injuries and property damage in connection with a counternarcotics aerial herbicide spraying operations in Colombia. As many of the plaintiffs and witnesses were unable to travel to the US, he obtained their testimony in Ecuador. The case went to trial with six test plaintiffs and resulted in a complete defense verdict. Represented pro bono the first person to be released from prison pursuant to D.C.’s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act.","searchable_name":"Gregory Scott Chernack (Greg)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442382,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":988,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Ciatti specializes in civil litigation and investigations involving a broad range of administrative, constitutional, statutory and common law issues. As a partner in our Contracts and Business Torts practice, Mike represents clients in a variety of industries, including financial services, automotive, pharmaceuticals and healthcare. Mike is also the Deputy Office Managing Partner for our Washington, D.C., office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-ciatti","email":"mciatti@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and other agencies, such as the SEC, IRS, OCC and various State Attorneys General, as well as parallel class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in an indemnification claim related to breached representations and warranties in a stock purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation in various federal courts over the Third Amendment to Freddie Mac\u0026rsquo;s Stock Purchase Agreement with the Department of Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in more than 40 state-wide class actions in federal courts around the country regarding the constitutionality and scope of its Congressionally mandated tax exemption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in suit by mortgage brokers in United States District Court for the Central District of California that included antitrust and defamation claims. Obtained dismissal of suit by mortgage brokers against Freddie Mac in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that included defamation, intentional interference with contract and conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated motion for preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of complaint in suit brought against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution related to the Home Affordable Modification Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted data privacy internal investigation for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eenergy company.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea professional service firm\u003c/strong\u003e in lawsuits brought in various federal and state courts alleging, among other things, fraud, malpractice and RICO violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMylan Laboratories\u003c/strong\u003e in a four-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving antitrust claims arising from exclusive supply agreements with API producers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e with respect to government investigations related to whistleblower allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea legal permanent resident\u003c/strong\u003e before the United States Supreme Court and lower courts in his successful appeal regarding the scope of a federal criminal statute that defines \u0026ldquo;crimes of violence\u0026rdquo; and provides a basis for removal from the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major textile company\u003c/strong\u003e against its insurer in a $1.1 billion property loss and business interruption claim resulting from an industrial catastrophe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of claims against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eindividual defendants\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging breach of contract, fraud and RICO violations, arising out of partnership disputes related to shopping mall management.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":56}]},"expertise":[{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ciatti","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Ciatti specializes in civil litigation and investigations involving a broad range of administrative, constitutional, statutory and common law issues. As a partner in our Contracts and Business Torts practice, Mike represents clients in a variety of industries, including financial services, automotive, pharmaceuticals and healthcare. Mike is also the Deputy Office Managing Partner for our Washington, D.C., office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and other agencies, such as the SEC, IRS, OCC and various State Attorneys General, as well as parallel class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in an indemnification claim related to breached representations and warranties in a stock purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation in various federal courts over the Third Amendment to Freddie Mac\u0026rsquo;s Stock Purchase Agreement with the Department of Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in more than 40 state-wide class actions in federal courts around the country regarding the constitutionality and scope of its Congressionally mandated tax exemption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in suit by mortgage brokers in United States District Court for the Central District of California that included antitrust and defamation claims. Obtained dismissal of suit by mortgage brokers against Freddie Mac in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that included defamation, intentional interference with contract and conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated motion for preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of complaint in suit brought against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFreddie Mac\u003c/strong\u003e in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution related to the Home Affordable Modification Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted data privacy internal investigation for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eenergy company.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea professional service firm\u003c/strong\u003e in lawsuits brought in various federal and state courts alleging, among other things, fraud, malpractice and RICO violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMylan Laboratories\u003c/strong\u003e in a four-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving antitrust claims arising from exclusive supply agreements with API producers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e with respect to government investigations related to whistleblower allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea legal permanent resident\u003c/strong\u003e before the United States Supreme Court and lower courts in his successful appeal regarding the scope of a federal criminal statute that defines \u0026ldquo;crimes of violence\u0026rdquo; and provides a basis for removal from the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major textile company\u003c/strong\u003e against its insurer in a $1.1 billion property loss and business interruption claim resulting from an industrial catastrophe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of claims against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eindividual defendants\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging breach of contract, fraud and RICO violations, arising out of partnership disputes related to shopping mall management.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":775}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:59.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:59.000Z","searchable_text":"Ciatti{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 100 financial institution in parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and other agencies, such as the SEC, IRS, OCC and various State Attorneys General, as well as parallel class action litigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a multinational pharmaceutical company in an indemnification claim related to breached representations and warranties in a stock purchase agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing Freddie Mac in litigation in various federal courts over the Third Amendment to Freddie Mac’s Stock Purchase Agreement with the Department of Treasury.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Freddie Mac in more than 40 state-wide class actions in federal courts around the country regarding the constitutionality and scope of its Congressionally mandated tax exemption.{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment for Freddie Mac in suit by mortgage brokers in United States District Court for the Central District of California that included antitrust and defamation claims. Obtained dismissal of suit by mortgage brokers against Freddie Mac in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that included defamation, intentional interference with contract and conspiracy claims.{{ FIELD }}Defeated motion for preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of complaint in suit brought against Freddie Mac in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution related to the Home Affordable Modification Program.{{ FIELD }}Conducted data privacy internal investigation for energy company.{{ FIELD }}Defended a professional service firm in lawsuits brought in various federal and state courts alleging, among other things, fraud, malpractice and RICO violations.{{ FIELD }}Defended Mylan Laboratories in a four-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving antitrust claims arising from exclusive supply agreements with API producers.{{ FIELD }}Represented The Coca-Cola Company with respect to government investigations related to whistleblower allegations.{{ FIELD }}Represented a legal permanent resident before the United States Supreme Court and lower courts in his successful appeal regarding the scope of a federal criminal statute that defines “crimes of violence” and provides a basis for removal from the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major textile company against its insurer in a $1.1 billion property loss and business interruption claim resulting from an industrial catastrophe.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of claims against individual defendants in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging breach of contract, fraud and RICO violations, arising out of partnership disputes related to shopping mall management.{{ FIELD }}Mike Ciatti specializes in civil litigation and investigations involving a broad range of administrative, constitutional, statutory and common law issues. As a partner in our Contracts and Business Torts practice, Mike represents clients in a variety of industries, including financial services, automotive, pharmaceuticals and healthcare. Mike is also the Deputy Office Managing Partner for our Washington, D.C., office. Michael J Ciatti Partner University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia District of Columbia Virginia American Bar Association Virginia State Bar Represented a Fortune 100 financial institution in parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and other agencies, such as the SEC, IRS, OCC and various State Attorneys General, as well as parallel class action litigation. Successfully represented a multinational pharmaceutical company in an indemnification claim related to breached representations and warranties in a stock purchase agreement. Representing Freddie Mac in litigation in various federal courts over the Third Amendment to Freddie Mac’s Stock Purchase Agreement with the Department of Treasury. Successfully represented Freddie Mac in more than 40 state-wide class actions in federal courts around the country regarding the constitutionality and scope of its Congressionally mandated tax exemption. Obtained summary judgment for Freddie Mac in suit by mortgage brokers in United States District Court for the Central District of California that included antitrust and defamation claims. Obtained dismissal of suit by mortgage brokers against Freddie Mac in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that included defamation, intentional interference with contract and conspiracy claims. Defeated motion for preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of complaint in suit brought against Freddie Mac in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution related to the Home Affordable Modification Program. Conducted data privacy internal investigation for energy company. Defended a professional service firm in lawsuits brought in various federal and state courts alleging, among other things, fraud, malpractice and RICO violations. Defended Mylan Laboratories in a four-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving antitrust claims arising from exclusive supply agreements with API producers. Represented The Coca-Cola Company with respect to government investigations related to whistleblower allegations. Represented a legal permanent resident before the United States Supreme Court and lower courts in his successful appeal regarding the scope of a federal criminal statute that defines “crimes of violence” and provides a basis for removal from the U.S. Represented a major textile company against its insurer in a $1.1 billion property loss and business interruption claim resulting from an industrial catastrophe. Obtained dismissal of claims against individual defendants in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging breach of contract, fraud and RICO violations, arising out of partnership disputes related to shopping mall management.","searchable_name":"Michael J. Ciatti (Mike)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444465,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":676,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"susan-clare","email":"sclare@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":165}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Clare","nick_name":"Susan","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia","years_held":"2005"}],"first_name":"Susan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":776}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-19T16:18:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-19T16:18:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Clare{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star for Transportation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.{{ FIELD }}Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.{{ FIELD }}Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.{{ FIELD }}Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.{{ FIELD }}Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).{{ FIELD }}Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.{{ FIELD }}Susan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by Law 360. \nSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by The Legal 500, a Rising Star for Transportation by Law 360, a Georgia Rising Star by Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, and was also named to Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List. \nWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\nShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\nIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies, consumer communications, and product recalls. Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\nSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions. Susan M Clare Partner Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South Benchmark Litigation, 2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Named a Rising Star for Transportation Law360, 2018 Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products Super Lawyers, 2013–2019 Order of the Coif  Georgia Institute of Technology  Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia International Academy of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy, 2014 Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data. Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019. Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017. Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires. Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases. Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents. Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud. Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty. Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma. Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products. Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017). Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014). Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012). Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011). Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.","searchable_name":"Susan M. Clare","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445683,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7313,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer and former federal prosecutor, Tinos Diamantatos is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier, invitation-only legal associations in North America. He is ranked in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and noted as \u0026ldquo;an outstanding trial lawyer\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;a creative, forceful and tireless advocate\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;tremendous for clients and a good counselor.\u0026rdquo; He is listed in 2026 \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e 500 Leading Litigators in America, is listed in \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for White-Collar Criminal Defense, and is recognized and recommended for dispute resolution, corporate investigations, and white-collar defense by the \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUS\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos is a premier courtroom advocate and trusted strategic advisor to corporations, boards, C-suites, senior executives, and individuals in their most consequential criminal, regulatory, and complex business litigation. This includes general litigation matters related to government investigations, \u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation, government and internal investigations, and securities enforcement proceedings. He is recognized for leading high-stakes white-collar government enforcement, and complex commercial matters where the margin for error is zero and the cost of failure is existential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as one of \u003cem\u003eCrain\u0026rsquo;s Chicago Business\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys\u0026rdquo; for 2023, Tinos has tried more than 20 cases and achieved an outstanding record of success at trial. Tinos\u0026rsquo; trial representations span jurisdictions in both federal and state courts throughout the United States and have involved complex civil and criminal matters. Included among his trial successes are two separate trial wins for a Fortune 10 company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos\u0026rsquo; representations span several industry sectors, including the retail, pharmaceutical, healthcare, pharmacy, medical device, and financial services industries. He has handled investigations, the defense, and prosecutions of matters involving alleged healthcare fraud, commodities fraud, mortgage fraud, money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and tax evasion. He has also handled other complex matters involving terrorism, racketeering, extortion, corruption, obstruction, and civil rights violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos has been trusted by Fortune 500 companies, industry-leading pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, retail pharmacy chains, financial institutions, privately held businesses, and individuals in matters of utmost importance. He helps clients navigate government investigations, regulatory minefields, and related white collar litigation throughout the United States and around the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tinos was a partner at an AmLaw 25 firm where he served as the Chicago office managing partner and as co-head of that firm\u0026rsquo;s global white collar and government investigations practice group. Before joining private practice, Tinos served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Chicago where he successfully handled high-profile cases and trials that received national and international media attention. He also successfully served as lead appellate counsel representing the government on nine appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits. He served in a number of sections within the Chicago U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, including the Financial Crimes and Special Prosecutions Section, and the office\u0026rsquo;s Public Corruption and Organized Crime Section, where he completed his career as a prosecutor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos is also a former federal judicial law clerk and a former president of the prestigious Chicago Inn of Court.\u0026nbsp;He maintains an active pro bono practice and is involved in multiple mentoring initiatives.\u0026nbsp;He is a former member of the John Marshall Law School Board of Trustees and has served as an adjunct trial advocacy professor for the law school, where he has coached many successful trial teams competing at the national level. He teaches, by invitation, law enforcement courses on trial techniques and investigative tactics to federal agents at their national training centers.\u0026nbsp;In 2025, the Hellenic Bar Association recognized him with its \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; Award.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tinos-diamantatos","email":"tdiamantatos@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a major financial institution in a class action involving allegations related to purported violations of state statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a publicly traded corporation in the managed services industry against allegations of contract fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFalse Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending pharmaceutical companies in federal district court and state court in an action brought by a government entity alleging improper marketing of opioids. Recently successfully obtained dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending ongoing FCA litigation for a national healthcare provider in federal district court following Department of Justice intervention on allegations related to improper physician billing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended pharmaceutical companies in multiple government investigations involving allegations related to off-label promotion and marketing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with a Department of Justice inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting multiple individual physicians in connection with various federal investigations of alleged healthcare fraud and improper billing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an individual in a Department of Justice investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecurities Fraud\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a medical device manufacturer in connection with a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented individual under investigation for alleged insider trading. Matter recently closed by the Securities and Exchange Commission with no adverse action taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation for multi-national corporation stemming from alleged violations of money laundering, structuring, and related financial reporting requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a variety of internal investigations of potential abuse and procurement fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled clients on FCPA issues and compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1142,"guid":"1142.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Diamantatos","nick_name":"Tinos","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Charles P. Kocoras, Northern District of Illinois","years_held":"2004 - 2005"}],"first_name":"Tinos","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow","detail":"American College of Trial Lawyers"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"Illinois Lawyer of the Year","detail":"Hellenic Bar Association, 2025"},{"title":"Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys","detail":"Crain’s Chicago Business (2023)"},{"title":"Recognized for Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Chicago","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, (2023–2025)"},{"title":"Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations – Illinois","detail":"Chambers USA (2021–2025)"},{"title":"Up and Coming, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations – Illinois","detail":"Chambers USA (2020)"},{"title":"Dispute resolution: Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense","detail":"The Legal 500 US (2016, 2018–2025)"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer and former federal prosecutor, Tinos Diamantatos is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier, invitation-only legal associations in North America. He is ranked in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and noted as \u0026ldquo;an outstanding trial lawyer\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;a creative, forceful and tireless advocate\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;tremendous for clients and a good counselor.\u0026rdquo; He is listed in 2026 \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e 500 Leading Litigators in America, is listed in \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for White-Collar Criminal Defense, and is recognized and recommended for dispute resolution, corporate investigations, and white-collar defense by the \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUS\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos is a premier courtroom advocate and trusted strategic advisor to corporations, boards, C-suites, senior executives, and individuals in their most consequential criminal, regulatory, and complex business litigation. This includes general litigation matters related to government investigations, \u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation, government and internal investigations, and securities enforcement proceedings. He is recognized for leading high-stakes white-collar government enforcement, and complex commercial matters where the margin for error is zero and the cost of failure is existential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as one of \u003cem\u003eCrain\u0026rsquo;s Chicago Business\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys\u0026rdquo; for 2023, Tinos has tried more than 20 cases and achieved an outstanding record of success at trial. Tinos\u0026rsquo; trial representations span jurisdictions in both federal and state courts throughout the United States and have involved complex civil and criminal matters. Included among his trial successes are two separate trial wins for a Fortune 10 company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos\u0026rsquo; representations span several industry sectors, including the retail, pharmaceutical, healthcare, pharmacy, medical device, and financial services industries. He has handled investigations, the defense, and prosecutions of matters involving alleged healthcare fraud, commodities fraud, mortgage fraud, money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and tax evasion. He has also handled other complex matters involving terrorism, racketeering, extortion, corruption, obstruction, and civil rights violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos has been trusted by Fortune 500 companies, industry-leading pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, retail pharmacy chains, financial institutions, privately held businesses, and individuals in matters of utmost importance. He helps clients navigate government investigations, regulatory minefields, and related white collar litigation throughout the United States and around the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tinos was a partner at an AmLaw 25 firm where he served as the Chicago office managing partner and as co-head of that firm\u0026rsquo;s global white collar and government investigations practice group. Before joining private practice, Tinos served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Chicago where he successfully handled high-profile cases and trials that received national and international media attention. He also successfully served as lead appellate counsel representing the government on nine appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits. He served in a number of sections within the Chicago U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, including the Financial Crimes and Special Prosecutions Section, and the office\u0026rsquo;s Public Corruption and Organized Crime Section, where he completed his career as a prosecutor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTinos is also a former federal judicial law clerk and a former president of the prestigious Chicago Inn of Court.\u0026nbsp;He maintains an active pro bono practice and is involved in multiple mentoring initiatives.\u0026nbsp;He is a former member of the John Marshall Law School Board of Trustees and has served as an adjunct trial advocacy professor for the law school, where he has coached many successful trial teams competing at the national level. He teaches, by invitation, law enforcement courses on trial techniques and investigative tactics to federal agents at their national training centers.\u0026nbsp;In 2025, the Hellenic Bar Association recognized him with its \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; Award.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a major financial institution in a class action involving allegations related to purported violations of state statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a publicly traded corporation in the managed services industry against allegations of contract fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFalse Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending pharmaceutical companies in federal district court and state court in an action brought by a government entity alleging improper marketing of opioids. Recently successfully obtained dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending ongoing FCA litigation for a national healthcare provider in federal district court following Department of Justice intervention on allegations related to improper physician billing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended pharmaceutical companies in multiple government investigations involving allegations related to off-label promotion and marketing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with a Department of Justice inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting multiple individual physicians in connection with various federal investigations of alleged healthcare fraud and improper billing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an individual in a Department of Justice investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecurities Fraud\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a medical device manufacturer in connection with a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented individual under investigation for alleged insider trading. Matter recently closed by the Securities and Exchange Commission with no adverse action taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation for multi-national corporation stemming from alleged violations of money laundering, structuring, and related financial reporting requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a variety of internal investigations of potential abuse and procurement fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled clients on FCPA issues and compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow","detail":"American College of Trial Lawyers"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"Illinois Lawyer of the Year","detail":"Hellenic Bar Association, 2025"},{"title":"Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys","detail":"Crain’s Chicago Business (2023)"},{"title":"Recognized for Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Chicago","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, (2023–2025)"},{"title":"Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations – Illinois","detail":"Chambers USA (2021–2025)"},{"title":"Up and Coming, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations – Illinois","detail":"Chambers USA (2020)"},{"title":"Dispute resolution: Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense","detail":"The Legal 500 US (2016, 2018–2025)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13354}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-09T16:03:46.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-09T16:03:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Diamantatos{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American College of Trial Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"500 Leading Litigators in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Illinois Lawyer of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hellenic Bar Association, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain’s Chicago Business (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Chicago\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, (2023–2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations – Illinois\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2021–2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations – Illinois\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2020)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Dispute resolution: Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US (2016, 2018–2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Defending a major financial institution in a class action involving allegations related to purported violations of state statutes.{{ FIELD }}Defending a publicly traded corporation in the managed services industry against allegations of contract fraud.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Defending pharmaceutical companies in federal district court and state court in an action brought by a government entity alleging improper marketing of opioids. Recently successfully obtained dismissal of action.{{ FIELD }}Defending ongoing FCA litigation for a national healthcare provider in federal district court following Department of Justice intervention on allegations related to improper physician billing.{{ FIELD }}Defended pharmaceutical companies in multiple government investigations involving allegations related to off-label promotion and marketing practices.{{ FIELD }}Criminal Investigations{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in connection with a Department of Justice inquiry.{{ FIELD }}Representing multiple individual physicians in connection with various federal investigations of alleged healthcare fraud and improper billing practices.{{ FIELD }}Representing an individual in a Department of Justice investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.{{ FIELD }}Securities Fraud{{ FIELD }}Representing a medical device manufacturer in connection with a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceeding.{{ FIELD }}Represented individual under investigation for alleged insider trading. Matter recently closed by the Securities and Exchange Commission with no adverse action taken.{{ FIELD }}Internal Investigations{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation for multi-national corporation stemming from alleged violations of money laundering, structuring, and related financial reporting requirements.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a variety of internal investigations of potential abuse and procurement fraud.{{ FIELD }}Counseled clients on FCPA issues and compliance programs.{{ FIELD }}As a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer and former federal prosecutor, Tinos Diamantatos is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier, invitation-only legal associations in North America. He is ranked in Chambers USA and noted as “an outstanding trial lawyer” who is “a creative, forceful and tireless advocate” and “tremendous for clients and a good counselor.” He is listed in 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, is listed in The Best Lawyers in America for White-Collar Criminal Defense, and is recognized and recommended for dispute resolution, corporate investigations, and white-collar defense by the Legal 500 US.\nTinos is a premier courtroom advocate and trusted strategic advisor to corporations, boards, C-suites, senior executives, and individuals in their most consequential criminal, regulatory, and complex business litigation. This includes general litigation matters related to government investigations, qui tam litigation, government and internal investigations, and securities enforcement proceedings. He is recognized for leading high-stakes white-collar government enforcement, and complex commercial matters where the margin for error is zero and the cost of failure is existential. \nListed as one of Crain’s Chicago Business “Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys” for 2023, Tinos has tried more than 20 cases and achieved an outstanding record of success at trial. Tinos’ trial representations span jurisdictions in both federal and state courts throughout the United States and have involved complex civil and criminal matters. Included among his trial successes are two separate trial wins for a Fortune 10 company.\nTinos’ representations span several industry sectors, including the retail, pharmaceutical, healthcare, pharmacy, medical device, and financial services industries. He has handled investigations, the defense, and prosecutions of matters involving alleged healthcare fraud, commodities fraud, mortgage fraud, money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and tax evasion. He has also handled other complex matters involving terrorism, racketeering, extortion, corruption, obstruction, and civil rights violations.\nTinos has been trusted by Fortune 500 companies, industry-leading pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, retail pharmacy chains, financial institutions, privately held businesses, and individuals in matters of utmost importance. He helps clients navigate government investigations, regulatory minefields, and related white collar litigation throughout the United States and around the world.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tinos was a partner at an AmLaw 25 firm where he served as the Chicago office managing partner and as co-head of that firm’s global white collar and government investigations practice group. Before joining private practice, Tinos served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago where he successfully handled high-profile cases and trials that received national and international media attention. He also successfully served as lead appellate counsel representing the government on nine appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits. He served in a number of sections within the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, including the Financial Crimes and Special Prosecutions Section, and the office’s Public Corruption and Organized Crime Section, where he completed his career as a prosecutor.\nTinos is also a former federal judicial law clerk and a former president of the prestigious Chicago Inn of Court. He maintains an active pro bono practice and is involved in multiple mentoring initiatives. He is a former member of the John Marshall Law School Board of Trustees and has served as an adjunct trial advocacy professor for the law school, where he has coached many successful trial teams competing at the national level. He teaches, by invitation, law enforcement courses on trial techniques and investigative tactics to federal agents at their national training centers. In 2025, the Hellenic Bar Association recognized him with its “Lawyer of the Year” Award. Partner Fellow American College of Trial Lawyers 500 Leading Litigators in America Lawdragon, 2026 Illinois Lawyer of the Year Hellenic Bar Association, 2025 Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys Crain’s Chicago Business (2023) Recognized for Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Chicago The Best Lawyers in America, (2023–2025) Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations – Illinois Chambers USA (2021–2025) Up and Coming, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations – Illinois Chambers USA (2020) Dispute resolution: Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense The Legal 500 US (2016, 2018–2025) DePaul University DePaul University College of Law The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Illinois Member, American Bar Association Member, Federal Bar Association Member, Chicago Bar Association President, Chicago Inn of Court (2017–2018) Member, Seventh Circuit Bar Association Member, Hellenic Bar Association Member, The John Marshall Law School Board of Trustees Member, Order of John Marshall Law Clerk, Judge Charles P. Kocoras, Northern District of Illinois Commercial Litigation Defending a major financial institution in a class action involving allegations related to purported violations of state statutes. Defending a publicly traded corporation in the managed services industry against allegations of contract fraud. False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation Defending pharmaceutical companies in federal district court and state court in an action brought by a government entity alleging improper marketing of opioids. Recently successfully obtained dismissal of action. Defending ongoing FCA litigation for a national healthcare provider in federal district court following Department of Justice intervention on allegations related to improper physician billing. Defended pharmaceutical companies in multiple government investigations involving allegations related to off-label promotion and marketing practices. Criminal Investigations Representing a large financial institution in connection with a Department of Justice inquiry. Representing multiple individual physicians in connection with various federal investigations of alleged healthcare fraud and improper billing practices. Representing an individual in a Department of Justice investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption. Securities Fraud Representing a medical device manufacturer in connection with a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceeding. Represented individual under investigation for alleged insider trading. Matter recently closed by the Securities and Exchange Commission with no adverse action taken. Internal Investigations Conducted an internal investigation for multi-national corporation stemming from alleged violations of money laundering, structuring, and related financial reporting requirements. Conducted a variety of internal investigations of potential abuse and procurement fraud. Counseled clients on FCPA issues and compliance programs.","searchable_name":"Tinos Diamantatos","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}]}}