{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"5","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"L","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":446711,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5844,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.\u0026nbsp; He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi\u0026rsquo;s lead validity experts at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including \u003cem\u003eFTC v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eIn re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation\u003c/em\u003e, the principal \u003cem\u003eApple v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"patrick-lafferty","email":"plafferty@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lafferty","nick_name":"Patrick","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2009 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Patrick","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":753,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-lafferty-0a238b28/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.\u0026nbsp; He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi\u0026rsquo;s lead validity experts at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including \u003cem\u003eFTC v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eIn re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation\u003c/em\u003e, the principal \u003cem\u003eApple v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11656}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-13T16:16:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-13T16:16:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Lafferty{{ FIELD }}Patrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.  His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.  He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO. \nPatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous inter partes review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\nRepresentative Matters\nRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\nRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi’s lead validity experts at trial.\nRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including FTC v. Qualcomm, the In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation, the principal Apple v. Qualcomm antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\nRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in inter partes review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR. Partner University of Maryland-College Park  George Washington University George Washington University Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit District of Columbia Virginia Intern, Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Patrick M. Lafferty","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":426442,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3570,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation\u0026nbsp;(MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey\u0026nbsp;recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.\u0026nbsp; She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.\u0026nbsp; She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"bailey-langner","email":"blangner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Langner","nick_name":"Bailey","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bailey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation\u0026nbsp;(MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey\u0026nbsp;recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.\u0026nbsp; She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.\u0026nbsp; She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":984}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Langner{{ FIELD }}Bailey Langner is a skilled litigator with a focus on defending tech companies, product manufacturers, and energy sector clients in product liability and personal injury cases. She litigates in state and federal court, including multi-district litigation (MDLs) and coordinated state proceedings, and represents clients in related government investigations. Bailey has significant trial, deposition, and case management experience and has helped secure important victories for clients at all stages of litigation. Bailey recently completed a secondment at a San Francisco-based tech company and gained insight into the issues companies face.  \nIn addition to her legal practice, Bailey is active in the community.  She mentors students through the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity and previously served as a trustee on her local school board.  She has a robust pro bono practice, including assisting students obtain and renew their DACA status.  \nBailey received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she co-founded a clinical program helping underserved populations access public benefits and worked as a teaching assistant in the first-year legal writing program.   Partner Brown University  University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley, School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California","searchable_name":"Bailey J. Langner","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426823,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5701,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlvin Lee\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex commercial disputes,\u0026nbsp;mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology\u0026nbsp;sectors, among others. \u0026nbsp;He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure,\u0026nbsp;and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events\u0026nbsp;such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has been described as a \u0026ldquo;super litigator\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003eand was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.\u0026nbsp; Alvin has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.\u0026nbsp; He served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e's\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.\u0026nbsp; In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by \u003cem\u003eCrain's New York Business\u003c/em\u003e as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022\u0026nbsp;and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers\u0026nbsp;of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.\u0026nbsp; He has also represented raw material\u0026nbsp;and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure\u0026nbsp;projects.\u0026nbsp; He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as\u0026nbsp;in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits. \u0026nbsp;He has defended companies\u0026nbsp;in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product\u0026nbsp;liability dockets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate\u0026nbsp;and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings\u0026nbsp;before various tribunals, including recent victories\u0026nbsp;in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.\u0026nbsp; He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"alvin-lee","email":"alvin.lee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHemlock Semiconductor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Michigan Bar Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded medical technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBig Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Chinese solar panel manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Union Carbide Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreviously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Carbide Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lee","nick_name":"Alvin","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Alvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)","detail":"The American Lawyer"},{"title":"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader","detail":"Crain's New York Business"},{"title":"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40","detail":"Bloomberg Law"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2024"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Editorial Board, Energy","detail":"Law360, 2022"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law","detail":"Crain's New York Business, 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star (Energy)","detail":"Law360, 2021"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlvin Lee\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex commercial disputes,\u0026nbsp;mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology\u0026nbsp;sectors, among others. \u0026nbsp;He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure,\u0026nbsp;and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events\u0026nbsp;such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has been described as a \u0026ldquo;super litigator\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 \u003c/em\u003eand was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.\u0026nbsp; Alvin has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.\u0026nbsp; He served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e's\u0026nbsp;Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.\u0026nbsp; In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by \u003cem\u003eCrain's New York Business\u003c/em\u003e as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022\u0026nbsp;and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers\u0026nbsp;of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.\u0026nbsp; He has also represented raw material\u0026nbsp;and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure\u0026nbsp;projects.\u0026nbsp; He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as\u0026nbsp;in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits. \u0026nbsp;He has defended companies\u0026nbsp;in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product\u0026nbsp;liability dockets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.\u0026nbsp; Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate\u0026nbsp;and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings\u0026nbsp;before various tribunals, including recent victories\u0026nbsp;in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.\u0026nbsp; He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHemlock Semiconductor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Michigan Bar Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded medical technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBig Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Chinese solar panel manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Union Carbide Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreviously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Carbide Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePricewaterhouseCoopers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)","detail":"The American Lawyer"},{"title":"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader","detail":"Crain's New York Business"},{"title":"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40","detail":"Bloomberg Law"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2024"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Editorial Board, Energy","detail":"Law360, 2022"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2022"},{"title":"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law","detail":"Crain's New York Business, 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star (Energy)","detail":"Law360, 2021"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7619}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:12.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Lee{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain's New York Business\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bloomberg Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editorial Board, Energy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Notable Diverse Leader in the Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Crain's New York Business, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star (Energy)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution in a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements.{{ FIELD }}Represented Hemlock Semiconductor in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that The Michigan Bar Journal named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan.{{ FIELD }}Representing The Dow Chemical Company in a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a private equity fund and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel for a publicly traded medical technology company in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Big Four accounting firm in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}First-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of a major Chinese solar panel manufacturer against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue.{{ FIELD }}Represented the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) in a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.{{ FIELD }}First-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of a major U.S. manufacturing company against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client.{{ FIELD }}Acted as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against Union Carbide Corporation alleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant.{{ FIELD }}Previously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for Union Carbide Corporation in relation to its substantial asbestos docket.{{ FIELD }}Represented PricewaterhouseCoopers in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against PricewaterhouseCoopers alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.{{ FIELD }}Alvin Lee focuses on complex commercial disputes, mass torts, and class action defense, most notably for clients in the energy, financial services, chemical, manufacturing, and technology sectors, among others.  He has significant experience in disputes relating to large-scale energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects and has litigated a number of high-profile disputes relating to supply chain disruptions and force majeure declarations, including those associated with events such as the U.S.-China solar trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas power market in February 2021.  In addition to his trial practice, Alvin has significant experience in cross-border disputes and international arbitration.\nAlvin has been described as a “super litigator” in The Legal 500 and was recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2024 edition of \"They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40,\" which recognizes the best lawyers in the country under the age of 40.  Alvin has also been recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a Future Star and was named to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List for four consecutive years, from 2021 to 2024.  He served on Law360's Editorial Board for the Energy sector in 2022 and was previously named a Law360 Rising Star in the Energy sector in 2021.  In recognition for his leadership on diversity and inclusion initiatives, he was named by Crain's New York Business as a Notable Diverse Leader in the Law in 2022 and as a Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader in 2024.\n\nAlvin has significant experience in the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries, where he has advised owners, developers, sponsors, and offtakers of large-scale manufacturing, solar, wind, and other power generation projects.  He has also represented raw material and component manufacturers and suppliers, and has significant experience advising clients in connection with complex financing vehicles for energy and infrastructure projects.  He has represented companies in litigation relating to all aspects of the development and construction of energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects as well as in litigation arising out of offtake, supply, and production agreements associated with such facilities.  \nAlvin also has significant experience in mass tort \u0026amp; products liability suits.  He has defended companies in a wide variety of toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions.  Alvin also has experience serving as national coordinating and litigation counsel for companies in relation to substantial nationwide mass tort and product liability dockets. \nIn addition to his work for energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies, Alvin has considerable experience representing financial services institutions and accounting firms in both commercial and professional liability litigation.  He also has experience defending companies in data privacy litigation and consumer class actions.  Alvin is an experienced trial and appellate advocate and has first-chaired numerous arbitration hearings before various tribunals, including recent victories in confidential arbitrations involving the energy, chemical, and manufacturing industries that resulted in 9-figure arbitration awards.\nAlvin is highly active in diversity \u0026amp; inclusion initiatives throughout the legal profession.  He has held a number of D\u0026amp;I leadership positions both within the firm and in Asian American and LGBTQ+ bar organizations. Partner Legal Lion of the Week Law360 Litigator of the Week (Runner-Up) The American Lawyer Notable LGBTQIA+ Leader Crain's New York Business They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40 Bloomberg Law 40 \u0026amp; Under List Benchmark Litigation, 2024 40 \u0026amp; Under List Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Editorial Board, Energy Law360, 2022 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2022 Notable Diverse Leader in the Law Crain's New York Business, 2022 Rising Star (Energy) Law360, 2021 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021 Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2020 Cornell University Cornell Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois New York Representing a major financial institution in a series of litigations arising out of Winter Storm Uri and its impacts on the Texas energy market in February 2021. The lawsuits have been filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country and involve force majeure declarations issued by wind farms relating to ISDA hedge agreements as well as pricing disputes arising out of such agreements. Represented Hemlock Semiconductor in a series of bet-the-company actions relating to take-or pay supply agreements in the solar energy industry. Coordinated global litigation strategy with counsel in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Germany, and obtained billions of dollars of precedent-setting judgments against entities in those countries. Obtained a $793 million summary judgment award against a European solar manufacturer, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that The Michigan Bar Journal named as one of the Top 10 Business Cases of the Decade (2010-2019) in the State of Michigan. Representing The Dow Chemical Company in a series of toxic tort and environmental litigations, including multiple class actions and mass actions alleging exposure to chemical releases and environmental emissions to chemicals such as ethylene oxide. Obtained a complete dismissal on behalf of a private equity fund and its directors in a lawsuit arising out of the development and construction of a 674-megawatt combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plant. Representing a major financial institution in an antitrust action regarding the setting of LIBOR. Served as trial counsel for a publicly traded medical technology company in a $500 million M\u0026amp;A dispute in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a material adverse effect (MAE) clause. Representing a Big Four accounting firm in litigation relating to the demise of a publicly traded health services company operating in the Middle East. First-chaired a confidential arbitration on behalf of a major Chinese solar panel manufacturer against the developer of a utility-scale solar energy project in the U.S, resulting in a complete victory. The dispute arose out of an M\u0026amp;A agreement involving the project at issue. Represented the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) in a series of bet-the-company litigations against the City of Jacksonville, Florida arising out of the development of nuclear generating units at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia. First-chaired a confidential international arbitration on behalf of a major U.S. manufacturing company against a Chinese state-owned enterprise, resulting in substantial recovery for client. Acted as a member of a team that obtained dismissal of a putative class action against Union Carbide Corporation alleging medical monitoring claims based on exposure to chemicals emitted from a metal alloying plant. Previously served as a member of a team of national coordinating and litigation counsel for Union Carbide Corporation in relation to its substantial asbestos docket. Represented PricewaterhouseCoopers in a series of actions alleging federal securities fraud and audit malpractice in connection with the dissolution of Lipper Convertibles, a New York hedge fund. Served as a member of PwC's trial team in a three-week jury trial. Secured a complete dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against PricewaterhouseCoopers alleging audit malpractice in connection with management malfeasance at a privately held health services corporation.","searchable_name":"Alvin Lee","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426875,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5744,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLennette Lee\u0026rsquo;s practice extends to all areas of complex commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on consumer class actions, intellectual property/media disputes, and employment and worker misclassification issues. Lennette has extensive experience leading the defense in high-stakes disputes through all phases of litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts, and has successfully tried multiple cases before juries and administrative bodies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComplex Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette\u0026rsquo;s civil litigation practice focuses on high-stakes disputes that span a wide range of claims including business torts, partnership disputes, breaches of contract, and environmental claims.\u0026nbsp; In 2019, she represented a tech start-up company in a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, and secured a favorable settlement for the client just before a motion for new trial was to be heard by the court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntellectual Property/Media\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette represents multiple entertainment and media conglomerates, including entertainment studios, music publishers and record labels, and media/news companies.\u0026nbsp; Her litigation work for these clients is focused on copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as licensing and\u0026nbsp;royalty disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer and Employment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette regularly defends clients including tech startups\u0026nbsp;and retail conglomerates in putative class, collective, and individual actions arising from consumer (TCPA, CLRA, unfair competition laws)\u0026nbsp;and employment (worker misclassification, discrimination, retaliation) issues.\u0026nbsp; Lennette also leads regulatory inquiries and develops bespoke Terms of Service/Terms of Use,\u0026nbsp;arbitration agreements, and other outward facing client policies to provide holistic advising on consumer and worker classification issues.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLennette is conversant in Chinese (Mandarin).\u0026nbsp; She proudly serves on the board of UNITE-LA, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating educational and career opportunities to the underserved youth and young adults in Los Angeles County.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lennette was named by the Los Angeles Business Journal as a 2023\u0026nbsp;Leader of Influence - Minority Attorneys.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;She has also been regularly recognized as a Rising Star by Southern California Super Lawyers since 2014.\u0026nbsp; In 2013, Lennette was awarded the Pro Bono Service Award by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLennette clerked for the Hon. John T. Nixon in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lennette-lee","email":"llee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eFollowing a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a tech start-up company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multi-million dollar arbitration award in FINRA, including punitive damages, against a financial services and investment firm\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured complete dismissal of class action alleging violations of California consumer protection laws against national storage company franchise\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a developer against allegations of multimillion-dollar damages from construction defects in a custom luxury residence, and obtained an early and favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme operated out of a national broker-dealer\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered more than $35 million in a mass-construction-defect case for a class of homeowners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained complete summary judgment victory on behalf of global retail company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeveraged an imminent summary judgment to obtain a favorable settlement on behalf of a global music publisher in a royalty dispute relating to the famed music composition \"La Vie en Rose\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a 3-0 victory before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a woman seeking protection of her immigration status under the Convention against Torture in light of repeated abuse she suffered at the hands of a Mexican police officer, forcing her to hide from her abuser in the United States\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an ACLU jail monitor following her firsthand observations of unwarranted deputy abuse of an incapacitated jail inmate, sparking an independent criminal investigation by federal authorities into Los Angeles County Sheriff\u0026rsquo;s Department\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":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lee","nick_name":"Lennette","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee","years_held":"2007 - 2008"}],"first_name":"Lennette","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Minority Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Key Lawyer (Copyright Litigation - Tier 1 Ranking; Trademark Litigation - Tier 3 Ranking) ","detail":"The Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers","detail":"Rising Star - 2014–2019"},{"title":"Pro Bono Service Award recipient, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2013"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennette-lee-los-angeles/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLennette Lee\u0026rsquo;s practice extends to all areas of complex commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on consumer class actions, intellectual property/media disputes, and employment and worker misclassification issues. Lennette has extensive experience leading the defense in high-stakes disputes through all phases of litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts, and has successfully tried multiple cases before juries and administrative bodies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComplex Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette\u0026rsquo;s civil litigation practice focuses on high-stakes disputes that span a wide range of claims including business torts, partnership disputes, breaches of contract, and environmental claims.\u0026nbsp; In 2019, she represented a tech start-up company in a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, and secured a favorable settlement for the client just before a motion for new trial was to be heard by the court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntellectual Property/Media\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette represents multiple entertainment and media conglomerates, including entertainment studios, music publishers and record labels, and media/news companies.\u0026nbsp; Her litigation work for these clients is focused on copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as licensing and\u0026nbsp;royalty disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer and Employment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eLennette regularly defends clients including tech startups\u0026nbsp;and retail conglomerates in putative class, collective, and individual actions arising from consumer (TCPA, CLRA, unfair competition laws)\u0026nbsp;and employment (worker misclassification, discrimination, retaliation) issues.\u0026nbsp; Lennette also leads regulatory inquiries and develops bespoke Terms of Service/Terms of Use,\u0026nbsp;arbitration agreements, and other outward facing client policies to provide holistic advising on consumer and worker classification issues.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLennette is conversant in Chinese (Mandarin).\u0026nbsp; She proudly serves on the board of UNITE-LA, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating educational and career opportunities to the underserved youth and young adults in Los Angeles County.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lennette was named by the Los Angeles Business Journal as a 2023\u0026nbsp;Leader of Influence - Minority Attorneys.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;She has also been regularly recognized as a Rising Star by Southern California Super Lawyers since 2014.\u0026nbsp; In 2013, Lennette was awarded the Pro Bono Service Award by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLennette clerked for the Hon. John T. Nixon in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eFollowing a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a tech start-up company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multi-million dollar arbitration award in FINRA, including punitive damages, against a financial services and investment firm\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured complete dismissal of class action alleging violations of California consumer protection laws against national storage company franchise\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a developer against allegations of multimillion-dollar damages from construction defects in a custom luxury residence, and obtained an early and favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme operated out of a national broker-dealer\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered more than $35 million in a mass-construction-defect case for a class of homeowners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained complete summary judgment victory on behalf of global retail company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeveraged an imminent summary judgment to obtain a favorable settlement on behalf of a global music publisher in a royalty dispute relating to the famed music composition \"La Vie en Rose\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a 3-0 victory before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a woman seeking protection of her immigration status under the Convention against Torture in light of repeated abuse she suffered at the hands of a Mexican police officer, forcing her to hide from her abuser in the United States\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an ACLU jail monitor following her firsthand observations of unwarranted deputy abuse of an incapacitated jail inmate, sparking an independent criminal investigation by federal authorities into Los Angeles County Sheriff\u0026rsquo;s Department\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Minority Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Key Lawyer (Copyright Litigation - Tier 1 Ranking; Trademark Litigation - Tier 3 Ranking) ","detail":"The Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers","detail":"Rising Star - 2014–2019"},{"title":"Pro Bono Service Award recipient, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8088}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:29.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Lee{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leaders of Influence: Minority Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Key Lawyer (Copyright Litigation - Tier 1 Ranking; Trademark Litigation - Tier 3 Ranking) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star - 2014–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Pro Bono Service Award recipient, ACLU Foundation of Southern California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Following a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a tech start-up company{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multi-million dollar arbitration award in FINRA, including punitive damages, against a financial services and investment firm{{ FIELD }}Secured complete dismissal of class action alleging violations of California consumer protection laws against national storage company franchise{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of a developer against allegations of multimillion-dollar damages from construction defects in a custom luxury residence, and obtained an early and favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme operated out of a national broker-dealer{{ FIELD }}Recovered more than $35 million in a mass-construction-defect case for a class of homeowners{{ FIELD }}Obtained complete summary judgment victory on behalf of global retail company{{ FIELD }}Leveraged an imminent summary judgment to obtain a favorable settlement on behalf of a global music publisher in a royalty dispute relating to the famed music composition \"La Vie en Rose\"{{ FIELD }}In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week{{ FIELD }}Obtained a 3-0 victory before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a woman seeking protection of her immigration status under the Convention against Torture in light of repeated abuse she suffered at the hands of a Mexican police officer, forcing her to hide from her abuser in the United States{{ FIELD }}Represented an ACLU jail monitor following her firsthand observations of unwarranted deputy abuse of an incapacitated jail inmate, sparking an independent criminal investigation by federal authorities into Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department{{ FIELD }}Lennette Lee’s practice extends to all areas of complex commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on consumer class actions, intellectual property/media disputes, and employment and worker misclassification issues. Lennette has extensive experience leading the defense in high-stakes disputes through all phases of litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts, and has successfully tried multiple cases before juries and administrative bodies.\nComplex Commercial LitigationLennette’s civil litigation practice focuses on high-stakes disputes that span a wide range of claims including business torts, partnership disputes, breaches of contract, and environmental claims.  In 2019, she represented a tech start-up company in a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, and secured a favorable settlement for the client just before a motion for new trial was to be heard by the court.\nIntellectual Property/MediaLennette represents multiple entertainment and media conglomerates, including entertainment studios, music publishers and record labels, and media/news companies.  Her litigation work for these clients is focused on copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as licensing and royalty disputes. \nConsumer and Employment MattersLennette regularly defends clients including tech startups and retail conglomerates in putative class, collective, and individual actions arising from consumer (TCPA, CLRA, unfair competition laws) and employment (worker misclassification, discrimination, retaliation) issues.  Lennette also leads regulatory inquiries and develops bespoke Terms of Service/Terms of Use, arbitration agreements, and other outward facing client policies to provide holistic advising on consumer and worker classification issues. \nLennette is conversant in Chinese (Mandarin).  She proudly serves on the board of UNITE-LA, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating educational and career opportunities to the underserved youth and young adults in Los Angeles County.  Lennette was named by the Los Angeles Business Journal as a 2023 Leader of Influence - Minority Attorneys.  She has also been regularly recognized as a Rising Star by Southern California Super Lawyers since 2014.  In 2013, Lennette was awarded the Pro Bono Service Award by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. \nLennette clerked for the Hon. John T. Nixon in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.    Partner Leaders of Influence: Minority Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal, 2023 Key Lawyer (Copyright Litigation - Tier 1 Ranking; Trademark Litigation - Tier 3 Ranking)  The Legal 500, 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Star - 2014–2019 Pro Bono Service Award recipient, ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2013 Rice University  University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California Texas Judicial Clerk, Hon. John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Following a 10-day jury trial for claims of breaches of warranty and fraud with damages exceeding $100 million, obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a tech start-up company Obtained a multi-million dollar arbitration award in FINRA, including punitive damages, against a financial services and investment firm Secured complete dismissal of class action alleging violations of California consumer protection laws against national storage company franchise Led the defense of a developer against allegations of multimillion-dollar damages from construction defects in a custom luxury residence, and obtained an early and favorable settlement Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme operated out of a national broker-dealer Recovered more than $35 million in a mass-construction-defect case for a class of homeowners Obtained complete summary judgment victory on behalf of global retail company Leveraged an imminent summary judgment to obtain a favorable settlement on behalf of a global music publisher in a royalty dispute relating to the famed music composition \"La Vie en Rose\" In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week Obtained a 3-0 victory before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a woman seeking protection of her immigration status under the Convention against Torture in light of repeated abuse she suffered at the hands of a Mexican police officer, forcing her to hide from her abuser in the United States Represented an ACLU jail monitor following her firsthand observations of unwarranted deputy abuse of an incapacitated jail inmate, sparking an independent criminal investigation by federal authorities into Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department","searchable_name":"Lennette Lee","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":444238,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5746,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65. Mike is a\u0026nbsp;leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California\u0026rsquo;s unfair business practices statute.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\"\u0026nbsp;Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite,\u0026nbsp;California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May\u0026nbsp;2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,\u0026rdquo; California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA\u0026rsquo;s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \u0026ldquo;Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChair, \u0026ldquo;The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,\u0026rdquo; 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"michael-leslie","email":"mleslie@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSubstituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million\u0026mdash;raised to more than $120 million at trial\u0026mdash;and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume\u0026mdash;after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike\u0026rsquo;s successful appeal\u0026mdash;was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s pretrial settlement demand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California\u0026rsquo;s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike\u0026rsquo;s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage\u0026rsquo;s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration\u0026mdash;including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling denying arbitration\u0026mdash;the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors\u0026rsquo; claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly represents potentially responsible parties (\u0026ldquo;PRPs\u0026rdquo;) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3637}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1488,"guid":"1488.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Leslie","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, Central District of California","years_held":"1985 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1904,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1985-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles","detail":"2016, 2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation","detail":"Band 3"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial","detail":"2018-present"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2004–present"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell ","detail":"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Michael R. Leslie is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65. Mike is a\u0026nbsp;leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California\u0026rsquo;s unfair business practices statute.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\"\u0026nbsp;Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite,\u0026nbsp;California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May\u0026nbsp;2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,\u0026rdquo; California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA\u0026rsquo;s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker and Moderator, \u0026ldquo;Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChair, \u0026ldquo;The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,\u0026rdquo; 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,\u0026rdquo; 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,\u0026rdquo; Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSubstituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million\u0026mdash;raised to more than $120 million at trial\u0026mdash;and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume\u0026mdash;after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike\u0026rsquo;s successful appeal\u0026mdash;was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s pretrial settlement demand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California\u0026rsquo;s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike\u0026rsquo;s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage\u0026rsquo;s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration\u0026mdash;including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling denying arbitration\u0026mdash;the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors\u0026rsquo; claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly represents potentially responsible parties (\u0026ldquo;PRPs\u0026rdquo;) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles","detail":"2016, 2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation","detail":"Band 3"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial","detail":"2018-present"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2004–present"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell ","detail":"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8089}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Leslie{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Band 3\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2004–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated\"}{{ FIELD }}Substituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General’s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer’s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client’s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million—raised to more than $120 million at trial—and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume—after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike’s successful appeal—was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff’s pretrial settlement demand.{{ FIELD }}Represented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year.{{ FIELD }}Represented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California’s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike’s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled.{{ FIELD }}Represented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage’s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration—including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court’s ruling denying arbitration—the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors’ claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses.{{ FIELD }}In a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff’s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation.{{ FIELD }}Regularly represents potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.{{ FIELD }}Mike Leslie is an accomplished trial lawyer and negotiator who focuses on complex environmental litigation, including litigation brought under CERCLA, CEQA, common law environmental torts, and California’s Proposition 65. Mike is a leader in the fields of ESG, \"Greenwashing,\" and state and federal Environmental Justice issues and has published and spoken widely on these topics. Mike also has deep expertise in complex commercial litigation, having prevailed in cases involving real estate, class actions, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Section 17200, California’s unfair business practices statute. \nMike has a long-standing record of successfully representing clients in the litigation and trial of high-stakes complex actions. Mike regularly represents Fortune 500 corporations, multinational energy companies, governmental agencies, and small businesses. He has tried numerous cases to verdict, negotiated complex multi-party consent decrees with state and federal agencies, and won both significant plaintiff and defense verdicts. In addition to his busy trial practice, he has also won important appeals for his clients before the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nMike is a leader in many of the leading environmental bar organizations and is also a frequent speaker on complex litigation and trial practice:\n\nSpeaker, \"ESG and EJ at the Crossroads,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (January 2025)\nSpeaker, \"The Rise of ESG in Litigation: Impacts and Implications for Environmental Litigation, Products Liability and Mass Torts,\" American Bar Association, Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts, Products Liability Seminar (February 2023)\nModerator, \"EJ Toolkit: State \u0026amp; Federal Policies and Initiatives,\" California Lawyers Association, 31st Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite (October 2022)\nSpeaker, \"Water Justice and Water Equity: Environmental Justice Issues in Water Law,\" Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, 68th Annual Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (July 2022)\nModerator, \"Environmental Justice Rises to the Forefront: Litigation, Regulatory and Legislative Impacts,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy, Mass Torts and Products Liability Litigation Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2022)\nModerator, \"Burning Issues in Climate Change: Litigation and Legislation in 2021 and Beyond,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021) \nModerator, \"Impacts of COVID-19 on Federal and State Enforcement Actions and Clean-Ups: Force Majeure in the COVID Era,\" ABA Environmental \u0026amp; Energy Litigation, Mass Torts and Products Liability Committees' Joint CLE Seminar (January 2021) \nSpeaker and Moderator, \"Groundwater as a Resource and Emerging Contaminants,\" 2017 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2017)\nSpeaker and Organizer, \"Private Enforcement of Environmental Law: Key Developments, Trends and Tactics,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (May 2016)\nModerator, \"Report from the Paris Climate Change Conference: Decisions Reached, Open Issues and the Path Forward,\" California State Bar Environmental Law Section (April 2016)\nSpeaker, \"Strategies for Managing Complex Environmental Matters,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association, Spring Environmental Law Symposium (March 2015) \nSpeaker, “Environmental Due Diligence: What Really Matters,” California State Bar Real Estate Section Retreat (May 2015)\nSpeaker, “Impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on CERCLA’s Preemption of State Limitations Periods for Property and Personal Injury Claims,” Los Angeles County Bar Association (August 2014)\nSpeaker, \"California's Revised Industrial Stormwater Regulations,\" Los Angeles County Bar Association (December 2013)\nSpeaker, “CERCLA's Mid-Life Crisis: How Best to Navigate Cost Recovery Actions,” 2013 Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (October 2013)\nSpeaker and Moderator, “Lessons Learned From the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,” 2011 Fall Environmental Law Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\nChair, “The Greening of California: Achieving Green Goals in a Time of Limited Financial Resources,” 2011 Spring Super Symposium, Los Angeles County Bar Association Environmental Law Section (March 2011)\nSpeaker, “Greenhouse Gases: Cap and Trade, Regulatory Strategies, and Impacts on Our Economy and Environment,” Los Angeles County Bar Association (April 2011)\nSpeaker, “Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,” 2005 Environmental Trial Academy, California State Bar Association\nSpeaker, “Seminar with Complex Court Judges and Selected Counsel Concerning Creative Techniques and Complex Case Management for Trials and Fact-Finding,” Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section (2002)\n Michael Leslie lawyer Partner Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigator of the Year – Los Angeles 2016, 2024 Best Lawyers in America – Environmental Litigation 2013–present Chambers USA--Ranked lawyer in Environmental Litigation Band 3 Benchmark Litigation – National and California Litigation Star, Environmental, General Commercial 2018-present Southern California Super Lawyers  2004–present Martindale-Hubbell  AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated Dartmouth College  Stanford University Stanford Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Co-Chair, American Bar Association Litigation Section's Mass Environmental/Toxic Torts Subcommittee (2009–present) Executive Committee, California State Bar Environmental Law Section (2014–2017); Treasurer (2016–2017); Advisor (2017-present) Chair, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section (2018); Vice-Chair, Treasurer (2014-2017); Executive Committee (2006–present) Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association – Litigation and Environmental Law Sections Member, American Bar Association – Litigation Section Member, Federal Bar Association Member, California Lawyers Association Executive Committee, American Bar Association, Energy \u0026amp; Environmental Litigation Committee (2009-present) Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, Central District of California Substituted into a complicated enforcement action as lead trial counsel a mere ten days before trial at the request of the State of California. Working with the California Attorney General’s office, Mike and the team represented the California Air Resources Board in the trial of an enforcement action brought against a major vehicle and engine manufacturer. The manufacturer had brought a cross-claim against the agency, alleging regulatory and constitutional violations, and seeking sweeping injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of the enforcement action. After multiple witnesses and days of trial, the manufacturer agreed to dismiss its cross-claim with prejudice and to pay CARB almost $2 million, plus an additional amount to be suspended conditioned upon the manufacturer’s future compliance with the engine emissions certification laws, thus resolving the case. Obtained a defense verdict after a five-week jury trial in federal court in San Francisco. As lead trial counsel, Mike represented a multinational energy company against claims for compensatory damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages, brought by a local governmental body that had been compelled to clean up wastes left over when its tenant, an oil recycler, went out of business. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in our client’s favor, awarding the plaintiff nothing. After the plaintiff appealed, Mike argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and won an opinion affirming the defense judgment in all respects. Represented a large energy company in a ten-week jury trial involving claims by a land company for cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination after substituting into the action a mere three weeks before trial. Although the plaintiff went to the jury with a damages claim of almost $70 million—raised to more than $120 million at trial—and also asserted a claim for punitive damages, Mike won a nonsuit on the punitive damages claim and obtained a jury verdict for his client on two out of the three areas of contamination at issue. The award on the remaining plume—after the verdict was reduced by more than $14 million on Mike’s successful appeal—was $3.9 million, almost $20 million less than the plaintiff’s pretrial settlement demand. Represented several California State agencies against an oil shipper and several other defendants who were involved in a spill of 400,000 gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil onto Orange County beaches, forcing widespread beach closures. After extensive litigation leading to $11 million in settlements with three of the defendants and precedent-setting decisions from both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal, Mike and his team recovered an $18 million jury verdict against the ship owner. This verdict was one of the first natural resource damage claims to go to trial and was reported as one of the ten largest jury verdicts that year. Represented defrauded investors in a fraud and RICO action against the financiers, attorneys, and promoters of a failed residential housing development. After pretrial settlements with most of the defendants, Mike and the team tried the case to a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against one of California’s largest banks. The case then settled on favorable terms, resulting in complete recovery for the 62 plaintiffs. Won summary judgment dismissing numerous tort, nuisance, and environmental claims brought by dozens of condominium owners and a condominium owners association on behalf of the client, a multinational oil company. The case arose out of a 110-unit condominium development built on a site that was a former terminal facility, which was sold by the client more than 25 years previously to another company. The plaintiffs presented a demand of more than $35 million, claiming property damage, diminution of value, nuisance damages, and emotional distress. Won summary judgment in a major case on behalf of the client, a large energy company. The plaintiff, a large real estate developer, claimed that historical contamination by Mike’s client led to an alleged $50 to $100 million in lost sales, costs, and damages. After almost five years of discovery and motion practice, in which Mike successfully knocked out all of the fraud, nondisclosure, and punitive damage claims, Mike obtained summary judgment dismissing all of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other tort claims, and reducing the damages in the case from an alleged $50 to $100 million to a small breach of contract claim over environmental consulting costs, which subsequently settled. Represented a group of investors who were defrauded by the registered financial representative of a large independent brokerage. After defeating the brokerage’s effort to force the case into a FINRA arbitration—including obtaining an opinion by the court of appeal affirming the trial court’s ruling denying arbitration—the team successfully litigated the case, ultimately settling the investors’ claims on the eve of trial for the majority of their investment losses. In a case alleging fraud in the sale of an oil field in Santa Barbara County, where the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against our client, Mike obtained summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mike then defended plaintiff’s appeal of the summary judgment, winning an affirmance of the summary judgment from the court of appeal, ending the litigation. Regularly represents potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in the prosecution and defense of CERCLA contribution actions, federal and state environmental investigations, and complex multi-plaintiff and multi-defendant toxic tort actions, such as those involving the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Superfund Site and the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Superfund Site.","searchable_name":"Michael R. Leslie","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426974,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6051,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Lesser is a highly skilled litigator who represents financial institutions and other commercial clients in civil litigation and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience with appellate litigation and defense of complex securities, commodities and consumer banking class actions and has represented clients in cases involving claims arising under securities laws, antitrust, CEA, RICO, FCRA, TILA, contract, and tort law claims, among others.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has also represented financial institutions and other clients in regulatory examination and enforcement matters involving the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, and other federal and state regulators. He also regularly provides regulatory counseling to financial institutions, including conducting compliance reviews concerning federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid received his JD from Yale Law School in 2001. While pursuing his JD, he also obtained a graduate M.Phil. degree in American Studies. Upon graduating from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-lesser","email":"dlesser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Litigation Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation arising out of alleged anticompetitive manipulation of Variable Rate Demand Obligation (VRDO) bonds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation alleging anticompetitive manipulation of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) bonds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a high-frequency trading and technology company in connection with civil litigation alleging spoofing scheme to manipulate futures markets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with all civil litigation arising out of alleged LIBOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with litigation arising out of alleged CDOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in litigation concerning various fair lending issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with all merchant and consumer antitrust litigation concerning the setting of payment card interchange fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with high-frequency trading civil class litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with federal securities litigation arising out of the subprime crisis and related matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with litigation concerning alleged market-making of unregistered securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning forfeiture of credit card rewards points.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two defendant underwriters in connection with 55 industry-wide cases alleging violations of Section 16(b) short swing profit regulations in connection with certain initial public offerings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning overdraft fees and transaction posting order.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several underwriter defendants in IPO-related antitrust and securities class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation arising out of credit-card APR repricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Regulatory Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with review of credit-card addon products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous large financial institutions in connection with examinations and enforcement actions by various federal regulators including the CFPB, OCC, and FDIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with fair lending issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with exportation of interest rates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled several large financial institutions in connection with compliance with UDAAP and other federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large consumer electronics merchant in connection with review of payment plan and compliance with federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large reverse-mortgage lender in review of compliance with federal consumer financial law.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1179,"guid":"1179.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1180,"guid":"1180.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lesser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Stand-out Lawyer – independently rated and selected by clients","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for financial services litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2017"},{"title":"Honored with the Above \u0026 Beyond Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Advocacy by Sanctuary for Families","detail":"2015"},{"title":"Named a \"New York Rising Star\" ","detail":"Metro Edition magazine, 2011, 2012"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Lesser is a highly skilled litigator who represents financial institutions and other commercial clients in civil litigation and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience with appellate litigation and defense of complex securities, commodities and consumer banking class actions and has represented clients in cases involving claims arising under securities laws, antitrust, CEA, RICO, FCRA, TILA, contract, and tort law claims, among others.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has also represented financial institutions and other clients in regulatory examination and enforcement matters involving the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, and other federal and state regulators. He also regularly provides regulatory counseling to financial institutions, including conducting compliance reviews concerning federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid received his JD from Yale Law School in 2001. While pursuing his JD, he also obtained a graduate M.Phil. degree in American Studies. Upon graduating from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Litigation Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation arising out of alleged anticompetitive manipulation of Variable Rate Demand Obligation (VRDO) bonds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation alleging anticompetitive manipulation of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) bonds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a high-frequency trading and technology company in connection with civil litigation alleging spoofing scheme to manipulate futures markets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with all civil litigation arising out of alleged LIBOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with litigation arising out of alleged CDOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in litigation concerning various fair lending issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with all merchant and consumer antitrust litigation concerning the setting of payment card interchange fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with high-frequency trading civil class litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with federal securities litigation arising out of the subprime crisis and related matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with litigation concerning alleged market-making of unregistered securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning forfeiture of credit card rewards points.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two defendant underwriters in connection with 55 industry-wide cases alleging violations of Section 16(b) short swing profit regulations in connection with certain initial public offerings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning overdraft fees and transaction posting order.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several underwriter defendants in IPO-related antitrust and securities class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation arising out of credit-card APR repricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Regulatory Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with review of credit-card addon products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous large financial institutions in connection with examinations and enforcement actions by various federal regulators including the CFPB, OCC, and FDIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with fair lending issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large financial institution in connection with exportation of interest rates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled several large financial institutions in connection with compliance with UDAAP and other federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large consumer electronics merchant in connection with review of payment plan and compliance with federal and state consumer financial laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled large reverse-mortgage lender in review of compliance with federal consumer financial law.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Stand-out Lawyer – independently rated and selected by clients","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for financial services litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2017"},{"title":"Honored with the Above \u0026 Beyond Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Advocacy by Sanctuary for Families","detail":"2015"},{"title":"Named a \"New York Rising Star\" ","detail":"Metro Edition magazine, 2011, 2012"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:02.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Lesser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Stand-out Lawyer – independently rated and selected by clients\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Thomson Reuters, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for financial services litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honored with the Above \u0026amp; Beyond Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Advocacy by Sanctuary for Families\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"New York Rising Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Metro Edition magazine, 2011, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}Recent Litigation Matters\nRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation arising out of alleged anticompetitive manipulation of Variable Rate Demand Obligation (VRDO) bonds.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation alleging anticompetitive manipulation of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) bonds.{{ FIELD }}Representing a high-frequency trading and technology company in connection with civil litigation alleging spoofing scheme to manipulate futures markets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in connection with all civil litigation arising out of alleged LIBOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in connection with litigation arising out of alleged CDOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in litigation concerning various fair lending issues.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large financial institution in connection with all merchant and consumer antitrust litigation concerning the setting of payment card interchange fees.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with high-frequency trading civil class litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with federal securities litigation arising out of the subprime crisis and related matters.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with litigation concerning alleged market-making of unregistered securities.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning forfeiture of credit card rewards points.{{ FIELD }}Represented two defendant underwriters in connection with 55 industry-wide cases alleging violations of Section 16(b) short swing profit regulations in connection with certain initial public offerings.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning overdraft fees and transaction posting order.{{ FIELD }}Represented several underwriter defendants in IPO-related antitrust and securities class action litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation arising out of credit-card APR repricing.{{ FIELD }}Recent Regulatory Matters\nCounseled large financial institution in connection with review of credit-card addon products.{{ FIELD }}Represented numerous large financial institutions in connection with examinations and enforcement actions by various federal regulators including the CFPB, OCC, and FDIC.{{ FIELD }}Counseled large financial institution in connection with fair lending issues.{{ FIELD }}Counseled large financial institution in connection with exportation of interest rates.{{ FIELD }}Counseled several large financial institutions in connection with compliance with UDAAP and other federal and state consumer financial laws.{{ FIELD }}Counseled large consumer electronics merchant in connection with review of payment plan and compliance with federal and state consumer financial laws.{{ FIELD }}Counseled large reverse-mortgage lender in review of compliance with federal consumer financial law.{{ FIELD }}David Lesser is a highly skilled litigator who represents financial institutions and other commercial clients in civil litigation and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience with appellate litigation and defense of complex securities, commodities and consumer banking class actions and has represented clients in cases involving claims arising under securities laws, antitrust, CEA, RICO, FCRA, TILA, contract, and tort law claims, among others.\nHe has also represented financial institutions and other clients in regulatory examination and enforcement matters involving the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, and other federal and state regulators. He also regularly provides regulatory counseling to financial institutions, including conducting compliance reviews concerning federal and state consumer financial laws.\nDavid received his JD from Yale Law School in 2001. While pursuing his JD, he also obtained a graduate M.Phil. degree in American Studies. Upon graduating from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Partner Stand-out Lawyer – independently rated and selected by clients Thomson Reuters, 2024 Recommended for financial services litigation Legal 500 US, 2017 Honored with the Above \u0026amp; Beyond Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Advocacy by Sanctuary for Families 2015 Named a \"New York Rising Star\"  Metro Edition magazine, 2011, 2012 University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Yale University Yale Law School Yale University Yale Law School New York Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Recent Litigation Matters\nRepresenting a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation arising out of alleged anticompetitive manipulation of Variable Rate Demand Obligation (VRDO) bonds. Representing a large financial institution in connection with civil litigation alleging anticompetitive manipulation of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) bonds. Representing a high-frequency trading and technology company in connection with civil litigation alleging spoofing scheme to manipulate futures markets. Representing a large financial institution in connection with all civil litigation arising out of alleged LIBOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims. Representing a large financial institution in connection with litigation arising out of alleged CDOR manipulation, alleging antitrust, commodities manipulation and other claims. Representing a large financial institution in litigation concerning various fair lending issues. Representing a large financial institution in connection with all merchant and consumer antitrust litigation concerning the setting of payment card interchange fees. Represented large financial institution in connection with high-frequency trading civil class litigation. Represented large financial institution in connection with federal securities litigation arising out of the subprime crisis and related matters. Represented large financial institution in connection with litigation concerning alleged market-making of unregistered securities. Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning forfeiture of credit card rewards points. Represented two defendant underwriters in connection with 55 industry-wide cases alleging violations of Section 16(b) short swing profit regulations in connection with certain initial public offerings. Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation concerning overdraft fees and transaction posting order. Represented several underwriter defendants in IPO-related antitrust and securities class action litigation. Represented large financial institution in connection with consumer class-action litigation arising out of credit-card APR repricing. Recent Regulatory Matters\nCounseled large financial institution in connection with review of credit-card addon products. Represented numerous large financial institutions in connection with examinations and enforcement actions by various federal regulators including the CFPB, OCC, and FDIC. Counseled large financial institution in connection with fair lending issues. Counseled large financial institution in connection with exportation of interest rates. Counseled several large financial institutions in connection with compliance with UDAAP and other federal and state consumer financial laws. Counseled large consumer electronics merchant in connection with review of payment plan and compliance with federal and state consumer financial laws. Counseled large reverse-mortgage lender in review of compliance with federal consumer financial law.","searchable_name":"David Lesser","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":447487,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6835,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJordan is a versatile and experienced litigator who regularly is called on to handle complex commercial and bankruptcy disputes. Jordan consistently thinks outside the box\u0026mdash;both before litigation is filed and also when advocating in court or arbitration. His wide range of experience includes representing energy companies, private equity firms, and financial institutions in a variety of commercial disputes, defending prominent companies in litigation brought by state attorneys general, and representing debtors, creditors, sponsors, and other stakeholders in litigated and consensual restructuring processes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJordan\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation experience includes, among other things, contract disputes, business torts, oil and gas disputes, fraud and misrepresentation claims, lender liability, collections, claims under state deceptive trade practices acts, antitrust claims, price-gouging claims, and real-estate litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has spent a significant amount of time defending lawyers and law firms in professional liability cases and advising on ethical issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJordan has significant experience presenting and cross-examining witnesses, attacking and defending complex valuations and damage models, and navigating difficult fiduciary and attorney-client privilege issues. \u0026nbsp;He also routinely advises clients on risk and performance issues involving existing and potential contracts, including with respect to mergers, acquisitions, payments, and other significant transactions.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his client work, Jordan regularly speaks on matters ranging from legal ethics to the unique aspects of litigating in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jordan-leu","email":"jleu@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHighlights\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of a private equity fund in an arbitration dispute over the enforceability of joint operating agreement (JOA) provisions; obtained summary disposition of the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s primary defense; case thereafter resolved by agreement (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs first-chair attorney, obtained judgment on partial findings in favor of lender-clients during trial of equity owner\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs one of the lead attorneys, successfully defended manufacturer against antitrust claims in an eight-day jury trial (D. Del.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs first-chair attorney, obtained $19 million arbitration award in favor of bank on defaulted loans (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an integrated oil and gas company as debtor in chapter 11 cases where the confirmed plan deleveraged more than $650 million in a debt-for-equity transaction and two significant royalty and working interest owner class actions were certified and settled post-confirmation (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJudgment rendered for law firm under Rule 12(b)(6) in suit brought by client\u0026rsquo;s insurer; Court of Appeals held that law firm was immune from suit (5th Cir.; E.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRestructuring Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDelivered closing argument at confirmation hearing on behalf of industrial ceramics and oilfield products manufacturers as chapter 11 debtors; pre-negotiated chapter 11 plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an agricultural holding company and a breed registry throughout their heavily litigated chapter 11 cases; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an ad hoc group of member-owner electric power cooperatives in an electric power company\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy case caused by Winter Storm Uri (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented purchaser of liquidating energy company\u0026rsquo;s assets; lead litigator post-sale in settling widespread royalty litigation (Bankr. W.D. Pa.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for physician association and management services organization in cure and related disputes in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProspect Medical Holdings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting secured creditor and contract counterparty in sale, cure, and related disputes in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGenesis Healthcare\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigation counsel for foreign affiliate of chapter 11 debtor in settling trust-fund and other claims related to customer payments (D. Del.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in representation of equity sponsor and certain officers and directors of upstream company in connection with its chapter 11 cases, which resulted in a $1.3 billion credit-bid asset sale, a global settlement with key stakeholders, and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented sponsor and direct parent of chapter 11 debtors in contested chapter 11 cases which involved key settlements that paved the way for a consensual reorganization of a legacy power generation business and the continued operation of new data center and crypto mining growth initiatives (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented offshore-focused upstream company as debtor in heavily litigated bankruptcy; plan confirmed, eliminating approximately $3.5 billion in debt (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc group of lenders in prepackaged chapter 11 cases of oilfield services company (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity firms as equity owners of oil and gas company; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLead attorney defending oilfield water solutions provider against contractual and tort claims brought by mineral interest owner (S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for national bank on 30 of 31 lender liability counterclaims; bank prevailed on the remaining counterclaim at trial (E.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTake-nothing summary disposition for national bank in lender liability case based on alleged wire fraud against bank\u0026rsquo;s customer (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major automotive manufacturer and its affiliate in multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general under deceptive trade practices statutes (Multiple Courts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented agricultural company in litigation filed by Texas attorney general under deceptive trade practices statute; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist.\u0026mdash;Harris Cnty.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigation counsel for seller in settling contractual and tort claims arising out of business sale\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMulti-year representation of non-bank lender in class action and various related suits arising from the failure of a home-healthcare program; class settlement approved (Multiple Courts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended private equity fund and affiliates against tortious interference and breach of contract claims; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former president and CEO of a South Texas bank in an OCC regulatory investigation; after responding to numerous subpoenas and the client\u0026rsquo;s deposition, the OCC decided not to assess a civil money penalty (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented non-operator in marketing fee dispute with operator; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented energy company in operatorship dispute and subsequent bankruptcy litigation (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n; Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented lender in simultaneously pending Bankruptcy Court and District Court cases involving lender liability and fraudulent transfer claims (N.D. Tex.; Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a national bank in a lender liability case based on embezzlement by bank customer\u0026rsquo;s employee; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Fort Bend County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former directors and officers of a South Texas bank in litigation brought by bank shareholders based on private placement memorandum (Tex. Dist. - Hidalgo County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended current and former bank directors in a variety of matters involving allegations of unsafe or unsound practices, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, false entry, and other violations of law and regulation (Office of Financial Institution Adjudication)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfessional Liability Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDismissal with prejudice of all claims brought against court-appointed receiver and receiver\u0026rsquo;s law firm; affirmed by Court of Appeals (5th Cir.; N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for law firm in legal malpractice suit arising from foreclosure; affirmed by Court of Appeals (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Dallas County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePartial summary judgment for law firm in professional liability suit by bankruptcy trustee alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting (Bankr. N.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented law firm in professional responsibility litigation brought by physician and affiliated company; district court upheld privilege assertions and was affirmed by Court of Appeals; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Harris County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of all claims brought against law firm on theories including successor liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer (S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1231,"guid":"1231.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Leu","nick_name":"Jordan","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jordan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2009-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected to the Texas Rising Stars list","detail":"Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), 2019−2025"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-leu-4033427/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJordan is a versatile and experienced litigator who regularly is called on to handle complex commercial and bankruptcy disputes. Jordan consistently thinks outside the box\u0026mdash;both before litigation is filed and also when advocating in court or arbitration. His wide range of experience includes representing energy companies, private equity firms, and financial institutions in a variety of commercial disputes, defending prominent companies in litigation brought by state attorneys general, and representing debtors, creditors, sponsors, and other stakeholders in litigated and consensual restructuring processes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJordan\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation experience includes, among other things, contract disputes, business torts, oil and gas disputes, fraud and misrepresentation claims, lender liability, collections, claims under state deceptive trade practices acts, antitrust claims, price-gouging claims, and real-estate litigation.\u0026nbsp; He also has spent a significant amount of time defending lawyers and law firms in professional liability cases and advising on ethical issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJordan has significant experience presenting and cross-examining witnesses, attacking and defending complex valuations and damage models, and navigating difficult fiduciary and attorney-client privilege issues. \u0026nbsp;He also routinely advises clients on risk and performance issues involving existing and potential contracts, including with respect to mergers, acquisitions, payments, and other significant transactions.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his client work, Jordan regularly speaks on matters ranging from legal ethics to the unique aspects of litigating in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHighlights\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of a private equity fund in an arbitration dispute over the enforceability of joint operating agreement (JOA) provisions; obtained summary disposition of the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s primary defense; case thereafter resolved by agreement (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs first-chair attorney, obtained judgment on partial findings in favor of lender-clients during trial of equity owner\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs one of the lead attorneys, successfully defended manufacturer against antitrust claims in an eight-day jury trial (D. Del.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs first-chair attorney, obtained $19 million arbitration award in favor of bank on defaulted loans (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an integrated oil and gas company as debtor in chapter 11 cases where the confirmed plan deleveraged more than $650 million in a debt-for-equity transaction and two significant royalty and working interest owner class actions were certified and settled post-confirmation (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJudgment rendered for law firm under Rule 12(b)(6) in suit brought by client\u0026rsquo;s insurer; Court of Appeals held that law firm was immune from suit (5th Cir.; E.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRestructuring Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDelivered closing argument at confirmation hearing on behalf of industrial ceramics and oilfield products manufacturers as chapter 11 debtors; pre-negotiated chapter 11 plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an agricultural holding company and a breed registry throughout their heavily litigated chapter 11 cases; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in the representation of an ad hoc group of member-owner electric power cooperatives in an electric power company\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy case caused by Winter Storm Uri (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented purchaser of liquidating energy company\u0026rsquo;s assets; lead litigator post-sale in settling widespread royalty litigation (Bankr. W.D. Pa.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for physician association and management services organization in cure and related disputes in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProspect Medical Holdings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting secured creditor and contract counterparty in sale, cure, and related disputes in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGenesis Healthcare\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigation counsel for foreign affiliate of chapter 11 debtor in settling trust-fund and other claims related to customer payments (D. Del.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigator in representation of equity sponsor and certain officers and directors of upstream company in connection with its chapter 11 cases, which resulted in a $1.3 billion credit-bid asset sale, a global settlement with key stakeholders, and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented sponsor and direct parent of chapter 11 debtors in contested chapter 11 cases which involved key settlements that paved the way for a consensual reorganization of a legacy power generation business and the continued operation of new data center and crypto mining growth initiatives (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented offshore-focused upstream company as debtor in heavily litigated bankruptcy; plan confirmed, eliminating approximately $3.5 billion in debt (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc group of lenders in prepackaged chapter 11 cases of oilfield services company (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity firms as equity owners of oil and gas company; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLead attorney defending oilfield water solutions provider against contractual and tort claims brought by mineral interest owner (S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for national bank on 30 of 31 lender liability counterclaims; bank prevailed on the remaining counterclaim at trial (E.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTake-nothing summary disposition for national bank in lender liability case based on alleged wire fraud against bank\u0026rsquo;s customer (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major automotive manufacturer and its affiliate in multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general under deceptive trade practices statutes (Multiple Courts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented agricultural company in litigation filed by Texas attorney general under deceptive trade practices statute; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist.\u0026mdash;Harris Cnty.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead litigation counsel for seller in settling contractual and tort claims arising out of business sale\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMulti-year representation of non-bank lender in class action and various related suits arising from the failure of a home-healthcare program; class settlement approved (Multiple Courts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended private equity fund and affiliates against tortious interference and breach of contract claims; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former president and CEO of a South Texas bank in an OCC regulatory investigation; after responding to numerous subpoenas and the client\u0026rsquo;s deposition, the OCC decided not to assess a civil money penalty (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented non-operator in marketing fee dispute with operator; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented energy company in operatorship dispute and subsequent bankruptcy litigation (Am. Arb. Ass\u0026rsquo;n; Bankr. S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented lender in simultaneously pending Bankruptcy Court and District Court cases involving lender liability and fraudulent transfer claims (N.D. Tex.; Bankr. N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a national bank in a lender liability case based on embezzlement by bank customer\u0026rsquo;s employee; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Fort Bend County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former directors and officers of a South Texas bank in litigation brought by bank shareholders based on private placement memorandum (Tex. Dist. - Hidalgo County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended current and former bank directors in a variety of matters involving allegations of unsafe or unsound practices, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, false entry, and other violations of law and regulation (Office of Financial Institution Adjudication)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfessional Liability Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDismissal with prejudice of all claims brought against court-appointed receiver and receiver\u0026rsquo;s law firm; affirmed by Court of Appeals (5th Cir.; N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for law firm in legal malpractice suit arising from foreclosure; affirmed by Court of Appeals (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Dallas County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePartial summary judgment for law firm in professional liability suit by bankruptcy trustee alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting (Bankr. N.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented law firm in professional responsibility litigation brought by physician and affiliated company; district court upheld privilege assertions and was affirmed by Court of Appeals; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. \u0026ndash; Harris County.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of all claims brought against law firm on theories including successor liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer (S.D. Tex.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Selected to the Texas Rising Stars list","detail":"Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), 2019−2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12080}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-13T16:02:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T16:02:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Leu{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected to the Texas Rising Stars list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), 2019−2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Highlights\nLead litigator in the representation of a private equity fund in an arbitration dispute over the enforceability of joint operating agreement (JOA) provisions; obtained summary disposition of the opposing party’s primary defense; case thereafter resolved by agreement (Am. Arb. Ass’n){{ FIELD }}As first-chair attorney, obtained judgment on partial findings in favor of lender-clients during trial of equity owner’s claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}As one of the lead attorneys, successfully defended manufacturer against antitrust claims in an eight-day jury trial (D. Del.){{ FIELD }}As first-chair attorney, obtained $19 million arbitration award in favor of bank on defaulted loans (Am. Arb. Ass’n){{ FIELD }}Lead litigator in the representation of an integrated oil and gas company as debtor in chapter 11 cases where the confirmed plan deleveraged more than $650 million in a debt-for-equity transaction and two significant royalty and working interest owner class actions were certified and settled post-confirmation (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Judgment rendered for law firm under Rule 12(b)(6) in suit brought by client’s insurer; Court of Appeals held that law firm was immune from suit (5th Cir.; E.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Restructuring Litigation{{ FIELD }}Delivered closing argument at confirmation hearing on behalf of industrial ceramics and oilfield products manufacturers as chapter 11 debtors; pre-negotiated chapter 11 plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Lead litigator in the representation of an agricultural holding company and a breed registry throughout their heavily litigated chapter 11 cases; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Lead litigator in the representation of an ad hoc group of member-owner electric power cooperatives in an electric power company’s bankruptcy case caused by Winter Storm Uri (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented purchaser of liquidating energy company’s assets; lead litigator post-sale in settling widespread royalty litigation (Bankr. W.D. Pa.){{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for physician association and management services organization in cure and related disputes in the Prospect Medical Holdings chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Representing secured creditor and contract counterparty in sale, cure, and related disputes in the Genesis Healthcare chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Lead litigation counsel for foreign affiliate of chapter 11 debtor in settling trust-fund and other claims related to customer payments (D. Del.){{ FIELD }}Lead litigator in representation of equity sponsor and certain officers and directors of upstream company in connection with its chapter 11 cases, which resulted in a $1.3 billion credit-bid asset sale, a global settlement with key stakeholders, and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented sponsor and direct parent of chapter 11 debtors in contested chapter 11 cases which involved key settlements that paved the way for a consensual reorganization of a legacy power generation business and the continued operation of new data center and crypto mining growth initiatives (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented offshore-focused upstream company as debtor in heavily litigated bankruptcy; plan confirmed, eliminating approximately $3.5 billion in debt (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented ad hoc group of lenders in prepackaged chapter 11 cases of oilfield services company (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented private equity firms as equity owners of oil and gas company; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation\nLead attorney defending oilfield water solutions provider against contractual and tort claims brought by mineral interest owner (S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for national bank on 30 of 31 lender liability counterclaims; bank prevailed on the remaining counterclaim at trial (E.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Take-nothing summary disposition for national bank in lender liability case based on alleged wire fraud against bank’s customer (Am. Arb. Ass’n){{ FIELD }}Representing major automotive manufacturer and its affiliate in multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general under deceptive trade practices statutes (Multiple Courts){{ FIELD }}Represented agricultural company in litigation filed by Texas attorney general under deceptive trade practices statute; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist.—Harris Cnty.){{ FIELD }}Lead litigation counsel for seller in settling contractual and tort claims arising out of business sale{{ FIELD }}Multi-year representation of non-bank lender in class action and various related suits arising from the failure of a home-healthcare program; class settlement approved (Multiple Courts){{ FIELD }}Defended private equity fund and affiliates against tortious interference and breach of contract claims; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Defended former president and CEO of a South Texas bank in an OCC regulatory investigation; after responding to numerous subpoenas and the client’s deposition, the OCC decided not to assess a civil money penalty (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency){{ FIELD }}Represented non-operator in marketing fee dispute with operator; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented energy company in operatorship dispute and subsequent bankruptcy litigation (Am. Arb. Ass’n; Bankr. S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented lender in simultaneously pending Bankruptcy Court and District Court cases involving lender liability and fraudulent transfer claims (N.D. Tex.; Bankr. N.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented a national bank in a lender liability case based on embezzlement by bank customer’s employee; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. – Fort Bend County.){{ FIELD }}Represented former directors and officers of a South Texas bank in litigation brought by bank shareholders based on private placement memorandum (Tex. Dist. - Hidalgo County.){{ FIELD }}Defended current and former bank directors in a variety of matters involving allegations of unsafe or unsound practices, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, false entry, and other violations of law and regulation (Office of Financial Institution Adjudication){{ FIELD }}Professional Liability Litigation\nDismissal with prejudice of all claims brought against court-appointed receiver and receiver’s law firm; affirmed by Court of Appeals (5th Cir.; N.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for law firm in legal malpractice suit arising from foreclosure; affirmed by Court of Appeals (Tex. Dist. – Dallas County.){{ FIELD }}Partial summary judgment for law firm in professional liability suit by bankruptcy trustee alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting (Bankr. N.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Represented law firm in professional responsibility litigation brought by physician and affiliated company; district court upheld privilege assertions and was affirmed by Court of Appeals; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. – Harris County.){{ FIELD }}Dismissal of all claims brought against law firm on theories including successor liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer (S.D. Tex.){{ FIELD }}Jordan is a versatile and experienced litigator who regularly is called on to handle complex commercial and bankruptcy disputes. Jordan consistently thinks outside the box—both before litigation is filed and also when advocating in court or arbitration. His wide range of experience includes representing energy companies, private equity firms, and financial institutions in a variety of commercial disputes, defending prominent companies in litigation brought by state attorneys general, and representing debtors, creditors, sponsors, and other stakeholders in litigated and consensual restructuring processes. \nJordan’s commercial litigation experience includes, among other things, contract disputes, business torts, oil and gas disputes, fraud and misrepresentation claims, lender liability, collections, claims under state deceptive trade practices acts, antitrust claims, price-gouging claims, and real-estate litigation.  He also has spent a significant amount of time defending lawyers and law firms in professional liability cases and advising on ethical issues.\nJordan has significant experience presenting and cross-examining witnesses, attacking and defending complex valuations and damage models, and navigating difficult fiduciary and attorney-client privilege issues.  He also routinely advises clients on risk and performance issues involving existing and potential contracts, including with respect to mergers, acquisitions, payments, and other significant transactions.  In addition to his client work, Jordan regularly speaks on matters ranging from legal ethics to the unique aspects of litigating in bankruptcy court. Partner Selected to the Texas Rising Stars list Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), 2019−2025 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas American Bankruptcy Institute Dallas Bar Association Harvard Club of Dallas Highlights\nLead litigator in the representation of a private equity fund in an arbitration dispute over the enforceability of joint operating agreement (JOA) provisions; obtained summary disposition of the opposing party’s primary defense; case thereafter resolved by agreement (Am. Arb. Ass’n) As first-chair attorney, obtained judgment on partial findings in favor of lender-clients during trial of equity owner’s claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) As one of the lead attorneys, successfully defended manufacturer against antitrust claims in an eight-day jury trial (D. Del.) As first-chair attorney, obtained $19 million arbitration award in favor of bank on defaulted loans (Am. Arb. Ass’n) Lead litigator in the representation of an integrated oil and gas company as debtor in chapter 11 cases where the confirmed plan deleveraged more than $650 million in a debt-for-equity transaction and two significant royalty and working interest owner class actions were certified and settled post-confirmation (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Judgment rendered for law firm under Rule 12(b)(6) in suit brought by client’s insurer; Court of Appeals held that law firm was immune from suit (5th Cir.; E.D. Tex.) Restructuring Litigation Delivered closing argument at confirmation hearing on behalf of industrial ceramics and oilfield products manufacturers as chapter 11 debtors; pre-negotiated chapter 11 plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Lead litigator in the representation of an agricultural holding company and a breed registry throughout their heavily litigated chapter 11 cases; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Lead litigator in the representation of an ad hoc group of member-owner electric power cooperatives in an electric power company’s bankruptcy case caused by Winter Storm Uri (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented purchaser of liquidating energy company’s assets; lead litigator post-sale in settling widespread royalty litigation (Bankr. W.D. Pa.) Lead counsel for physician association and management services organization in cure and related disputes in the Prospect Medical Holdings chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) Representing secured creditor and contract counterparty in sale, cure, and related disputes in the Genesis Healthcare chapter 11 cases (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) Lead litigation counsel for foreign affiliate of chapter 11 debtor in settling trust-fund and other claims related to customer payments (D. Del.) Lead litigator in representation of equity sponsor and certain officers and directors of upstream company in connection with its chapter 11 cases, which resulted in a $1.3 billion credit-bid asset sale, a global settlement with key stakeholders, and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented sponsor and direct parent of chapter 11 debtors in contested chapter 11 cases which involved key settlements that paved the way for a consensual reorganization of a legacy power generation business and the continued operation of new data center and crypto mining growth initiatives (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented offshore-focused upstream company as debtor in heavily litigated bankruptcy; plan confirmed, eliminating approximately $3.5 billion in debt (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented ad hoc group of lenders in prepackaged chapter 11 cases of oilfield services company (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented private equity firms as equity owners of oil and gas company; plan confirmed (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Commercial Litigation\nLead attorney defending oilfield water solutions provider against contractual and tort claims brought by mineral interest owner (S.D. Tex.) Summary judgment for national bank on 30 of 31 lender liability counterclaims; bank prevailed on the remaining counterclaim at trial (E.D. Tex.) Take-nothing summary disposition for national bank in lender liability case based on alleged wire fraud against bank’s customer (Am. Arb. Ass’n) Representing major automotive manufacturer and its affiliate in multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general under deceptive trade practices statutes (Multiple Courts) Represented agricultural company in litigation filed by Texas attorney general under deceptive trade practices statute; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist.—Harris Cnty.) Lead litigation counsel for seller in settling contractual and tort claims arising out of business sale Multi-year representation of non-bank lender in class action and various related suits arising from the failure of a home-healthcare program; class settlement approved (Multiple Courts) Defended private equity fund and affiliates against tortious interference and breach of contract claims; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Defended former president and CEO of a South Texas bank in an OCC regulatory investigation; after responding to numerous subpoenas and the client’s deposition, the OCC decided not to assess a civil money penalty (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) Represented non-operator in marketing fee dispute with operator; matter resolved by agreement (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented energy company in operatorship dispute and subsequent bankruptcy litigation (Am. Arb. Ass’n; Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Represented lender in simultaneously pending Bankruptcy Court and District Court cases involving lender liability and fraudulent transfer claims (N.D. Tex.; Bankr. N.D. Tex.) Represented a national bank in a lender liability case based on embezzlement by bank customer’s employee; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. – Fort Bend County.) Represented former directors and officers of a South Texas bank in litigation brought by bank shareholders based on private placement memorandum (Tex. Dist. - Hidalgo County.) Defended current and former bank directors in a variety of matters involving allegations of unsafe or unsound practices, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, false entry, and other violations of law and regulation (Office of Financial Institution Adjudication) Professional Liability Litigation\nDismissal with prejudice of all claims brought against court-appointed receiver and receiver’s law firm; affirmed by Court of Appeals (5th Cir.; N.D. Tex.) Summary judgment for law firm in legal malpractice suit arising from foreclosure; affirmed by Court of Appeals (Tex. Dist. – Dallas County.) Partial summary judgment for law firm in professional liability suit by bankruptcy trustee alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting (Bankr. N.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.) Represented law firm in professional responsibility litigation brought by physician and affiliated company; district court upheld privilege assertions and was affirmed by Court of Appeals; matter resolved by agreement (Tex. Dist. – Harris County.) Dismissal of all claims brought against law firm on theories including successor liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer (S.D. Tex.)","searchable_name":"Jordan W. Leu","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":436380,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2630,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAntonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.\u0026nbsp; He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"antonio-lewis","email":"alewis@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":187}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lewis","nick_name":"Antonio","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Antonio","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named North Carolina Rising Star ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019"},{"title":"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow","detail":"2016, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewisantonio","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAntonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.\u0026nbsp; He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named North Carolina Rising Star ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019"},{"title":"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow","detail":"2016, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9763}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Lewis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named North Carolina Rising Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2014-2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Antonio Lewis focuses his practice on litigating and trying complex commercial disputes and product liability matters for consumer products and other companies.  He has tried a number of cases to a successful jury verdict.\nAntonio also represents clients in disputes ranging from intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases, to complex commercial litigation cases, including professional liability matters and contract disputes.  He has also defended clients in class actions, as well as for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.\nAntonio has also served as in-house litigation counsel for an advanced-technology company focusing on aerospace, building technologies, performance materials \u0026amp; technologies, and safety \u0026amp; productivity solutions. In that role, he focused on a wide variety of global litigation and pre-litigation disputes, including commercial, product liability, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, compliance and anti-corruption, and insurance coverage matters and government investigations. Antonio E Lewis Partner Named North Carolina Rising Star  Super Lawyers, 2014-2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow 2016, 2022 Duke University Duke University School of Law Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Florida North Carolina North Carolina Bar Association","searchable_name":"Antonio E. Lewis","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443893,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6260,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Linzer focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and class action defense in state and federal courts. Ross represents corporate directors and officers in shareholder and derivative class actions involving allegations of securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. He also has significant experience representing insurance companies at the trial and appellate levels. Holding an M.B.A., Ross brings a diverse perspective and applies strategic considerations in helping clients to navigate their complex business challenges.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss has broad experience defending a variety of tort, environmental, and product liability cases in addition to his insurance defense and securities litigation experience.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ross-linzer","email":"rlinzer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":607,"guid":"607.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Linzer","nick_name":"Ross","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Ross","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":247,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2007-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” for Class Action/Mass Torts in Florida ","detail":"Super Lawyers Magazine, 2013-2022"},{"title":"Recognized as one of the “40 Under 40” Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida","detail":"Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Linzer focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and class action defense in state and federal courts. Ross represents corporate directors and officers in shareholder and derivative class actions involving allegations of securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. He also has significant experience representing insurance companies at the trial and appellate levels. Holding an M.B.A., Ross brings a diverse perspective and applies strategic considerations in helping clients to navigate their complex business challenges.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss has broad experience defending a variety of tort, environmental, and product liability cases in addition to his insurance defense and securities litigation experience.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” for Class Action/Mass Torts in Florida ","detail":"Super Lawyers Magazine, 2013-2022"},{"title":"Recognized as one of the “40 Under 40” Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida","detail":"Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9671}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:10.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:10.000Z","searchable_text":"Linzer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Rising Star” for Class Action/Mass Torts in Florida \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Magazine, 2013-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of the “40 Under 40” Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Ross Linzer focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and class action defense in state and federal courts. Ross represents corporate directors and officers in shareholder and derivative class actions involving allegations of securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. He also has significant experience representing insurance companies at the trial and appellate levels. Holding an M.B.A., Ross brings a diverse perspective and applies strategic considerations in helping clients to navigate their complex business challenges.\nRoss has broad experience defending a variety of tort, environmental, and product liability cases in addition to his insurance defense and securities litigation experience. Partner Named a “Rising Star” for Class Action/Mass Torts in Florida  Super Lawyers Magazine, 2013-2022 Recognized as one of the “40 Under 40” Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2016 Washington University in St. Louis Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Boston University Boston University School of Law Boston University Boston University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Florida Illinois Missouri American Bar Association, Member The Florida Bar, Member Miami Dade Bar, Member The Missouri Bar, Member The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Member Jewish Educational Loan Fund, Board Member Washington University in St. Louis, Eliot Society, Member Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Jewish Community Relations Council Member Anti-Defamation League, Glass Leadership Institute, Alumnus","searchable_name":"Ross Linzer","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":444841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6195,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.\u0026nbsp; Mike also represents\u0026nbsp;clients in investigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-lombardo","email":"mlombardo@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lombardo","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"Juris Doctor","honors":"honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2016-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Anthony","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.\u0026nbsp; Mike also represents\u0026nbsp;clients in investigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9428}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T15:46:33.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T15:46:33.000Z","searchable_text":"Lombardo{{ FIELD }}Mike is a trial lawyer in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Trial and Global Disputes Practice. His practice focuses on representing clients in a wide array of complex commercial disputes, including mass torts, partnership disputes, trust and estate litigation, franchise disputes, and breach of contract claims.  Mike also represents clients in investigation matters. Partner Northwestern University Northwestern Pritzker School of Law University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Illinois","searchable_name":"Michael Anthony Lombardo (Mike)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444703,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6188,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSophia A. Luby represents clients in regulatory proceedings, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Sophia frequently represents international and domestic accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations brought by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. She also has experience representing companies and individuals in SEC enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sophia-luby","email":"sluby@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1241,"guid":"1241.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Luby","nick_name":"Sophia","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sophia","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":753,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2017-01-01 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\u003eSophia A. Luby represents clients in regulatory proceedings, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Sophia frequently represents international and domestic accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations brought by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. She also has experience representing companies and individuals in SEC enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12017}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-01-02T16:00:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T16:00:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Luby{{ FIELD }}Sophia A. Luby represents clients in regulatory proceedings, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.  Sophia frequently represents international and domestic accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations brought by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. She also has experience representing companies and individuals in SEC enforcement actions. Partner Emory University Emory University School of Law George Washington University George Washington University Law School District of Columbia","searchable_name":"Sophia Luby","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444976,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1066,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.\u0026nbsp; He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Construction Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-ledet","email":"cledet@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 713 206 0517","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConstruction\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant\u0026rsquo;s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors\u0026rsquo; failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"BulletList\"\u003eRepresented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEngineering Defects\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner\u0026rsquo;s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMiscellaneous Torts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ledet","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\" ","detail":"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked in construction litigation ","detail":"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers"},{"title":"Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\" ","detail":"Super Lawyers"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/craig-ledet-6918659/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":77,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.\u0026nbsp; He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Construction Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConstruction\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant\u0026rsquo;s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors\u0026rsquo; failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"BulletList\"\u003eRepresented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEngineering Defects\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner\u0026rsquo;s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMiscellaneous Torts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\" ","detail":"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked in construction litigation ","detail":"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers"},{"title":"Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\" ","detail":"Super Lawyers"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":987}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-12T22:08:58.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-12T22:08:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Ledet{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a U.S. \\\"Litigation Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in construction litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a \\\"Texas Super Lawyer\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}ConstructionRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant’s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors’ failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room;{{ FIELD }}Representing a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced;{{ FIELD }}Recovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform.{{ FIELD }}Represented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project.{{ FIELD }}Engineering DefectsRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station.{{ FIELD }}Represented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner’s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict.{{ FIELD }}Miscellaneous Torts\nRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class.{{ FIELD }}Represented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations.{{ FIELD }}Represented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Craig Ledet focuses on engineering and construction-related disputes, including design and construction defect, delay, disruption, scope of work, differing site conditions, force majeure, and major industrial casualty matters, including personal injury and property damage matters. He is a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group, and has appeared in state and federal courts across the country and in arbitrations around the world.\nCraig worked as a professional engineer for more than seven years in the chemical manufacturing industry, where he was responsible for the design and construction of capital projects. With that energy industry background, Craig has focused most of his legal career on resolving engineering and construction disputes arising from energy-related infrastructure projects, including disputes involving refineries; gas plants; chemical plants; fossil-fuel, nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power plants; gas pipelines and compressor stations; and onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. He has also litigated construction matters involving sports stadiums, hospitals, and other facilities outside the energy industry. Craig has tried and arbitrated a variety of cases involving alleged engineering or construction defects that led to catastrophic industrial fires and explosions.  He has also tried and arbitrated numerous cases involving more traditional cost overrun, delay, disruption, scope change and similar construction-related claims.\nCraig has been recognized as a leading construction disputes specialist by Chambers USA, Legal 500, The International Who’s Who of Construction Lawyers, The Benchmark Litigation Guide, and the Guide To The World’s Leading Construction Lawyers. Senior Counsel Recognized as a U.S. \"Litigation Star\"  2017 Benchmark Litigation guide, 2017 Ranked in construction litigation  The Legal 500, Chambers USA, The International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers and the Guide to the World's Leading Construction Lawyers Recognized as a \"Texas Super Lawyer\"  Super Lawyers Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center University of Houston University of Houston Law Center Texas State Bar of Texas, American Bar Association, Houston Bar Association, Houston Young Lawyers Association ConstructionRecovered a nearly nine figure award for the owners of an 898 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Texas after a month-long CPR arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia. During commissioning, the plant’s boiler overheated which caused substantial property damage and project delay. The contractors who designed and built the plant blamed the event on operator error. Owners proved that the primary causes of the incident were a defective boiler control logic design and contractors’ failure to provide adequate supervision in the control room; Representing a natural gas pipeline company seeking damages from the designers and constructors of a natural gas pipeline in Georgia. The pipeline experienced severe external corrosion during construction which required that miles of the pipeline be replaced; Recovered $7.4 million in Atlanta federal court jury trial on behalf of a natural gas distribution company seeking damages from a weld inspection contractor who provided defective digital weld images during the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Represented the owner of a 185 megawatt hydroelectric power plant under construction in Peru, defending against contractor claims for costs and time extensions. Hearings on several preliminary issues were held before a Dispute Adjudication Board in London, England, after which the owner prevailed on all issues. Represented the owner of a power plant in Osceola, Arkansas in defense of force majeure claims brought by its EPC Contractor. Represented the owner in a dispute with its general contractor arising from the expansion of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. After several days of hearings, the case settled on favorable terms. Represented the owner of an LNG facility in Texas in a dispute with its general contractor over Hurricane Ike-related construction cost increases. Represented the owner in a AAA arbitration against an engineering and construction firm that provided defective mooring components for an offshore production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico, with the result being a substantial delay in project completion Represented the owner in a dispute with the general contractor constructing the Topsides of an offshore production platform. Represented the general contractor in a delay and cost dispute against the owner arising from the construction of a Pulp and Paper mill in Colonia, Uruguay. Represented the owner in a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas against its general contractor over construction cost overruns arising from the construction of a new cement production facility. Represented the general contractor in the defense of delay and productivity damage claims brought by a subcontractor on a paper mill construction project in Big Island, Virginia. At the conclusion of the two week-long trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented an LNG terminal owner in the defense of Hurricane Ike-related force majeure claims brought by its general contractor. Represented the EPC contractor in a AAA arbitration in which the client sought to recover monies owed for the completion of a chloralkali plant construction project in Geismar, Louisiana. Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by the roofing subcontractor for the construction of Minute Maid Park who alleged that project delays and interferences resulted in increased construction costs. Represented the EPC contractor in the defense of claims by a copper mine owner who sought reimbursement for cost overruns that it claimed were the result of construction inefficiencies on the cost reimbursable project. Represented the owner in the defense of construction damages claims brought by its general contractor and subcontractor in connection with the construction of an expansion to its aquatic feed manufacturing facility. At the conclusion of a two-week trial in Brazoria County, Texas, the jury returned a verdict rejecting the claims of the contractors and finding that our client was owed damages for construction delay and unfinished work. Represented an engineering and construction contractor in a dispute with the owner of a gas processing plant in Bolivia. Represented an EPC contractor in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan. Represented an EPC contractor in a construction costs dispute with the owner of a gas processing facility in Oklahoma. Represented a major oil company in a construction dispute with a national oil company operating in Africa and arising from the construction of a large onshore oil and gas infrastructure project. Engineering DefectsRepresented an EPC contractor in two wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio County, West Virginia arising from a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline pig receiving and launching station. Represented an EPC contractor in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a chemical plant owner following the explosion of the owner’s phenol plant in Theodore, Alabama. The case was arbitrated for a week in London under ICC rules. Plaintiffs sought nearly $20 million. After the hearing, the case was settled with our client paying nothing. Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs who were severely burned in a plastics plant explosion and fire in Pasadena, Texas. The case was tried in Harris County, Texas for nearly six weeks. The Plaintiffs sought nearly $130 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented an engineering company in the defense of engineering defect claims brought by a group of plaintiffs claiming to have suffered personal injuries during an ethylene plant explosion in Point Comfort, Texas. The case was tried in Calhoun County, Texas for four weeks. Plaintiffs sought nearly $4 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented a valve manufacturer defending against allegations that a defective valve caused the rupture of a high pressure steam line in a power plant that resulted in two deaths, one serious burn injury and $15 million in property damage. The case was tried to a jury in Platte County, Missouri and resulted in a favorable verdict. Miscellaneous Torts\nRepresented an oil company in the defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of more than 3000 putative class members who live, work or go to school in Bossier City, Louisiana and claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged exposure to residual refinery contamination. The Court refused to certify a class. Represented an engineering company in the defense of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secret allegations made by an industrial turbine cleaning subcontractor. The case was tried to a jury for a week in Mobile, Alabama. Plaintiffs sought more than $23 million, but the jury returned a complete defense verdict. Represented a general contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the surviving family members of a United States Army soldier who was electrocuted while serving in Iraq. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly ground the electrical equipment at issue. The case was dismissed before trial. Represented a major oil company in the defense of a docket of more than forty legacy oilfield contamination cases pending throughout Louisiana involving claims of soil and groundwater contamination from historical oilfield operations. Represented an automotive service company in various personal injury and wrongful death matters pending in various jurisdictions around the country and related to accidents involving vehicles serviced by the company. Represented a major oil company in defense of groundwater contamination cases brought in Hidalgo County, Texas by more than one hundred property owners. The case was settled on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Craig J. Ledet","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}