{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"cg-3","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":444441,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5244,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier Langlois is a partner in our Paris office. He regularly represents the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies in complex international arbitrations arising out of infrastructure and energy projects, international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal 500 has described Marc-Olivier as \u0026ldquo;outstanding,\u0026rdquo; noting his \u0026ldquo;excellent drafting and pleading skills\u0026rdquo; and ranking him \u0026ldquo;among the \u0026lsquo;few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier has twenty years\u0026rsquo; experience representing international companies and individuals in commercial and investment treaty arbitrations brought under the ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SCC, ICSID, and UNCITRAL Rules.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier specializes in complex disputes arising out of international energy and infrastructure projects.\u0026nbsp; He eschews a one-size-fits-all approach to dispute resolution, preferring to work closely with clients\u0026rsquo; internal teams and outside experts to develop tailor-made strategies for efficiently resolving specific disputes. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Clients value his ability to simplify complicated technical issues and craft winning legal arguments that take into account their commercial priorities and risks.\u0026nbsp; Marc-Olivier regularly acts for clients in the electrical power generation, oil and gas, nuclear, and renewables industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier also acts in disputes arising out of international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.\u0026nbsp; Among other things, he was part of a team of attorneys that obtained the first international awards finding the Russian Federation responsible for expropriating assets belonging to Yukos Oil Company and to Ukrainian investors following the Russian Federation\u0026rsquo;s takeover of Crimea.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA U.S.-trained lawyer and member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Paris, Marc-Olivier practiced international arbitration for many years at another international law firm in Paris, where he was the co-head of its international construction disputes practice and the managing partner of its Paris office.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier was raised and educated in the United States and France. He speaks English and French fluently.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"marc-olivier-langlois","email":"mlanglois@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Spanish infrastructure contractor in an ICSID arbitration against Kuwait seeking more than USD 300 million in compensation for delays and disruption occurring during the construction of an elevated roadway in Kuwait City\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting an Asian EPC contractor in preparing more than USD 270 million worth of contractual claims arising out of the construction of a power plant in Algeria\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational supplier of turbines in an AFSA arbitration with a South African EPC contractor arising out of a power plant owner\u0026rsquo;s exercise of its step-in rights in respect of the subcontract between the supplier and the EPC contractor, with claims valued at USD 20 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S.-based contractor in relation to arbitration claims arising out of the design and installation of undersea pipelines between oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational EPC contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of the commissioning of a power plant in Eastern Europe and the related termination of an EPC Contract, with claims valued in excess of 200 million euro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted a multinational contractor in preparing more than 100 million euro in contractual claims arising out of the construction of a third-generation nuclear reactor in Western Europe\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Eurasian state petroleum company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the design and installation of an underground natural gas storage facility\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended to a multinational EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration with a subcontractor over the construction of a power plant in Mexico\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActing for a multinational petroleum company in a nine-figure ICC arbitration arising out an Eastern European state's breach of contractual stabilisation provisions in an offshore gas concession contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an oil \u0026amp; gas company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against an Asian sovereign state relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest oil and gas service providers in litigation over alleged defects in well completion equipment, with claims valued in excess of 60 million euro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete victory for an international turbine service provider in an SCC arbitration brought by an Russian power plant operator seeking almost 160 million euro in compensation for alleged breaches of service agreements\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a multinational supplier of turbines in an SCC arbitration brought by a Russian power plant developer arising out of the supplier\u0026rsquo;s exercise of its termination rights and retention of a contractual termination fee, with claims valued at USD 20 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a UK-based heavy equipment supplier in an ICC mediation and arbitration arising out of alleged defects in electrical equipment installed in a fleet of modular power plants\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a UK-based industrial company in an AAA arbitration arising out of the installation of aluminum recycling equipment in a U.S. recycling facility\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an international airline in an ICSID arbitration against Venezuela arising out of Venezuela\u0026rsquo;s failure to permit the repatriation of the airline's locally generated profits\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting European and Asian investors in multiple ICSID arbitrations against Romania under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of changes to Romania\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;green certificate\u0026rdquo; incentive program enacted to stimulate investment in the renewable energy industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Ukrainian investors in five arbitrations against the Russian Federation under the Russia-Ukraine BIT arising out of measures carried out by the Russian Federation in connection with its annexation of Crimea\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Rosinvestco UK Ltd., a UK investment fund, in an arbitration against the Russian Federation under the UK-Russia BIT arising out of Russia\u0026rsquo;s expropriation of Yukos assets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMergers and Acquisitions/Joint Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational manufacturer of steam turbines in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner over the misappropriation of technology and mismanagement of an Indian joint venture\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French-based multinational in an ICC arbitration arising out of the sale and valuation of an industrial business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLicensing, Agency, and Distributorship\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration over licensing rights for a Brazilian trademark and pharmaceutical product\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the termination of an agency agreement for the promotion of pharmaceutical products in North Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDefense/Information Technology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended a U.S. defense contractor in an ICC arbitration against a European defense contractor arising out of alleged defects in equipment furnished for installation in missiles\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French-based consulting company in an ICC arbitration against an Indian IT company for breach of contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended an international energy services supply contractor in an LCIA arbitration arising out of the non-payment of consultant commissions due to compliance concerns\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Langlois","nick_name":"Marc-Olivier","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable James H. Michael, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia","years_held":"1996 - 1997"}],"first_name":"Marc-Olivier","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":462,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1996-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized for international arbitration","detail":"Chambers Global and Chambers France, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized as one of the world's leading international arbitration practitioners","detail":"Lexology Index France, 2025"},{"title":"“[P]rovides very reliable advice on the litigation strategy and has pretty exceptional drafting skills”","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for International Arbitration every year since 2010 ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"“‘Outstanding’ . . . ranks among the ‘few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts’”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“[K]nows the clients very well and also has institutional knowledge of our work”","detail":"Chambers Global 2024"},{"title":"“Excellent drafting and pleading skills” ","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“[V]ery good at understanding technical details and at working with experts to come up with convincing arguments” ","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"Repeatedly recognized in Best Lawyers in France for International Arbitration and Construction Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2023 - 2026"},{"title":"Named to the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier Langlois is a partner in our Paris office. He regularly represents the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies in complex international arbitrations arising out of infrastructure and energy projects, international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal 500 has described Marc-Olivier as \u0026ldquo;outstanding,\u0026rdquo; noting his \u0026ldquo;excellent drafting and pleading skills\u0026rdquo; and ranking him \u0026ldquo;among the \u0026lsquo;few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier has twenty years\u0026rsquo; experience representing international companies and individuals in commercial and investment treaty arbitrations brought under the ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SCC, ICSID, and UNCITRAL Rules.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier specializes in complex disputes arising out of international energy and infrastructure projects.\u0026nbsp; He eschews a one-size-fits-all approach to dispute resolution, preferring to work closely with clients\u0026rsquo; internal teams and outside experts to develop tailor-made strategies for efficiently resolving specific disputes. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Clients value his ability to simplify complicated technical issues and craft winning legal arguments that take into account their commercial priorities and risks.\u0026nbsp; Marc-Olivier regularly acts for clients in the electrical power generation, oil and gas, nuclear, and renewables industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier also acts in disputes arising out of international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.\u0026nbsp; Among other things, he was part of a team of attorneys that obtained the first international awards finding the Russian Federation responsible for expropriating assets belonging to Yukos Oil Company and to Ukrainian investors following the Russian Federation\u0026rsquo;s takeover of Crimea.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA U.S.-trained lawyer and member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Paris, Marc-Olivier practiced international arbitration for many years at another international law firm in Paris, where he was the co-head of its international construction disputes practice and the managing partner of its Paris office.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier was raised and educated in the United States and France. He speaks English and French fluently.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Spanish infrastructure contractor in an ICSID arbitration against Kuwait seeking more than USD 300 million in compensation for delays and disruption occurring during the construction of an elevated roadway in Kuwait City\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting an Asian EPC contractor in preparing more than USD 270 million worth of contractual claims arising out of the construction of a power plant in Algeria\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational supplier of turbines in an AFSA arbitration with a South African EPC contractor arising out of a power plant owner\u0026rsquo;s exercise of its step-in rights in respect of the subcontract between the supplier and the EPC contractor, with claims valued at USD 20 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S.-based contractor in relation to arbitration claims arising out of the design and installation of undersea pipelines between oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational EPC contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of the commissioning of a power plant in Eastern Europe and the related termination of an EPC Contract, with claims valued in excess of 200 million euro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted a multinational contractor in preparing more than 100 million euro in contractual claims arising out of the construction of a third-generation nuclear reactor in Western Europe\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Eurasian state petroleum company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the design and installation of an underground natural gas storage facility\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended to a multinational EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration with a subcontractor over the construction of a power plant in Mexico\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActing for a multinational petroleum company in a nine-figure ICC arbitration arising out an Eastern European state's breach of contractual stabilisation provisions in an offshore gas concession contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an oil \u0026amp; gas company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against an Asian sovereign state relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising one of the world's largest oil and gas service providers in litigation over alleged defects in well completion equipment, with claims valued in excess of 60 million euro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete victory for an international turbine service provider in an SCC arbitration brought by an Russian power plant operator seeking almost 160 million euro in compensation for alleged breaches of service agreements\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a multinational supplier of turbines in an SCC arbitration brought by a Russian power plant developer arising out of the supplier\u0026rsquo;s exercise of its termination rights and retention of a contractual termination fee, with claims valued at USD 20 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a UK-based heavy equipment supplier in an ICC mediation and arbitration arising out of alleged defects in electrical equipment installed in a fleet of modular power plants\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a UK-based industrial company in an AAA arbitration arising out of the installation of aluminum recycling equipment in a U.S. recycling facility\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an international airline in an ICSID arbitration against Venezuela arising out of Venezuela\u0026rsquo;s failure to permit the repatriation of the airline's locally generated profits\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting European and Asian investors in multiple ICSID arbitrations against Romania under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of changes to Romania\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;green certificate\u0026rdquo; incentive program enacted to stimulate investment in the renewable energy industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Ukrainian investors in five arbitrations against the Russian Federation under the Russia-Ukraine BIT arising out of measures carried out by the Russian Federation in connection with its annexation of Crimea\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Rosinvestco UK Ltd., a UK investment fund, in an arbitration against the Russian Federation under the UK-Russia BIT arising out of Russia\u0026rsquo;s expropriation of Yukos assets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMergers and Acquisitions/Joint Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational manufacturer of steam turbines in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner over the misappropriation of technology and mismanagement of an Indian joint venture\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French-based multinational in an ICC arbitration arising out of the sale and valuation of an industrial business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLicensing, Agency, and Distributorship\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration over licensing rights for a Brazilian trademark and pharmaceutical product\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the termination of an agency agreement for the promotion of pharmaceutical products in North Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDefense/Information Technology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended a U.S. defense contractor in an ICC arbitration against a European defense contractor arising out of alleged defects in equipment furnished for installation in missiles\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French-based consulting company in an ICC arbitration against an Indian IT company for breach of contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended an international energy services supply contractor in an LCIA arbitration arising out of the non-payment of consultant commissions due to compliance concerns\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized for international arbitration","detail":"Chambers Global and Chambers France, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized as one of the world's leading international arbitration practitioners","detail":"Lexology Index France, 2025"},{"title":"“[P]rovides very reliable advice on the litigation strategy and has pretty exceptional drafting skills”","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for International Arbitration every year since 2010 ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"“‘Outstanding’ . . . ranks among the ‘few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts’”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“[K]nows the clients very well and also has institutional knowledge of our work”","detail":"Chambers Global 2024"},{"title":"“Excellent drafting and pleading skills” ","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“[V]ery good at understanding technical details and at working with experts to come up with convincing arguments” ","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"Repeatedly recognized in Best Lawyers in France for International Arbitration and Construction Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2023 - 2026"},{"title":"Named to the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023"}]},"fr":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier Langlois est associ\u0026eacute; dans notre bureau de Paris. Il conseille r\u0026eacute;guli\u0026egrave;rement les plus grandes entreprises mondiales dans les arbitrages internationaux complexes en mati\u0026egrave;re d\u0026rsquo;infrastructure et de projets \u0026eacute;nerg\u0026eacute;tiques, d\u0026rsquo;investissements internationaux, de fusions et acquisitions, d\u0026rsquo;accords de licence et de distribution pharmaceutiques, dans des litiges en mati\u0026egrave;re de d\u0026eacute;fense et de technologie, et ceux li\u0026eacute;s aux probl\u0026eacute;matiques de conformit\u0026eacute;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal 500 a qualifi\u0026eacute; Marc-Olivier de \u0026laquo;remarquable\u0026raquo;, notant ses \u0026laquo;excellentes comp\u0026eacute;tences de r\u0026eacute;daction et de plaidoirie\u0026raquo;, et le pla\u0026ccedil;ant parmi \u0026laquo;les quelques sp\u0026eacute;cialistes de droit civil et de \u003cem\u003ecommon law\u003c/em\u003e qui savent vraiment auditionner des t\u0026eacute;moins et autres experts\u0026raquo;.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier a pr\u0026egrave;s de vingt ans d\u0026rsquo;exp\u0026eacute;rience dans le conseil d\u0026rsquo;entreprises internationales et de particuliers dans des arbitrages commerciaux et d\u0026rsquo;investissements port\u0026eacute;s sous le r\u0026eacute;gime de la CCI, de la LCIA, de l\u0026rsquo;AAA/ICDR, de la Chambre de Commerce de Stockholm, et de la CNUDCI.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier est sp\u0026eacute;cialis\u0026eacute; dans les litiges complexes li\u0026eacute;s aux projets internationaux d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;nergie et d\u0026rsquo;infrastructure. Il \u0026eacute;vite une approche unique du r\u0026egrave;glement des diff\u0026eacute;rends, pr\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rant travailler en \u0026eacute;troite collaboration avec les \u0026eacute;quipes internes des clients et des experts externes pour \u0026eacute;laborer des strat\u0026eacute;gies sur mesure afin de r\u0026eacute;soudre efficacement des litiges particuliers. Les clients appr\u0026eacute;cient sa capacit\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; simplifier les probl\u0026egrave;mes techniques compliqu\u0026eacute;s et \u0026agrave; \u0026eacute;laborer des arguments juridiques gagnants, tout en tenant compte de leurs priorit\u0026eacute;s et de leurs risques commerciaux. Marc-Olivier agit r\u0026eacute;guli\u0026egrave;rement pour des clients dans les secteurs de la production d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;lectricit\u0026eacute;, du p\u0026eacute;trole et du gaz, du nucl\u0026eacute;aire et des \u0026eacute;nergies renouvelables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier intervient \u0026eacute;galement dans des litiges li\u0026eacute;s aux investissements internationaux, aux fusions-acquisitions, aux accords de licence et de distribution pharmaceutiques, dans les litiges en mati\u0026egrave;re de d\u0026eacute;fense et de technologie, et ceux li\u0026eacute;s aux probl\u0026eacute;matiques de conformit\u0026eacute;. Il a notamment fait partie d\u0026rsquo;une \u0026eacute;quipe d\u0026rsquo;avocats ayant obtenu les premi\u0026egrave;res d\u0026eacute;cisions arbitrales internationales d\u0026eacute;clarant la F\u0026eacute;d\u0026eacute;ration de Russie responsable pour l\u0026rsquo;expropriation des actifs appartenant \u0026agrave; la soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; p\u0026eacute;troli\u0026egrave;re Ioukos et \u0026agrave; des investisseurs ukrainiens suite \u0026agrave; la prise de contr\u0026ocirc;le de la Crim\u0026eacute;e par la Russie.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvocat form\u0026eacute; aux \u0026Eacute;tats-Unis et membre des barreaux du District de Columbia et de la Virginie, Marc-Olivier a exerc\u0026eacute; son activit\u0026eacute; en arbitrage international pendant de nombreuses ann\u0026eacute;es dans un autre cabinet d\u0026rsquo;avocats international \u0026agrave; Paris, o\u0026ugrave; il \u0026eacute;tait coresponsable de sa pratique internationale des litiges de construction et associ\u0026eacute; g\u0026eacute;rant de son bureau de Paris.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarc-Olivier a \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; \u0026eacute;lev\u0026eacute; et \u0026eacute;duqu\u0026eacute; aux \u0026Eacute;tats-Unis et en France. Il parle couramment l\u0026rsquo;anglais et le fran\u0026ccedil;ais.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":[""],"recognitions":[{"title":"Reconnu pour l’arbitrage international chaque année depuis 2010","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"“‘Remarquable’ . . . parmi ‘les quelques spécialistes de droit civil et de common law qui savent vraiment auditionner des témoins et autres experts’”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“Excellentes compétences de rédaction et de plaidoirie” ","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA"},{"title":"“Très bien à comprendre les détails techniques et de travailler avec des experts pour trouver des arguments convaincants”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA "}]},"locales":["en","fr"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6056}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-18T19:09:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-18T19:09:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Langlois{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for international arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global and Chambers France, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of the world's leading international arbitration practitioners\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lexology Index France, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“[P]rovides very reliable advice on the litigation strategy and has pretty exceptional drafting skills”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for International Arbitration every year since 2010 \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“‘Outstanding’ . . . ranks among the ‘few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts’”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“[K]nows the clients very well and also has institutional knowledge of our work”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Excellent drafting and pleading skills” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“[V]ery good at understanding technical details and at working with experts to come up with convincing arguments” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Repeatedly recognized in Best Lawyers in France for International Arbitration and Construction Law \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in France, 2023 - 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Construction\nRepresenting a Spanish infrastructure contractor in an ICSID arbitration against Kuwait seeking more than USD 300 million in compensation for delays and disruption occurring during the construction of an elevated roadway in Kuwait City{{ FIELD }}Assisting an Asian EPC contractor in preparing more than USD 270 million worth of contractual claims arising out of the construction of a power plant in Algeria{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational supplier of turbines in an AFSA arbitration with a South African EPC contractor arising out of a power plant owner’s exercise of its step-in rights in respect of the subcontract between the supplier and the EPC contractor, with claims valued at USD 20 million{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S.-based contractor in relation to arbitration claims arising out of the design and installation of undersea pipelines between oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational EPC contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of the commissioning of a power plant in Eastern Europe and the related termination of an EPC Contract, with claims valued in excess of 200 million euro{{ FIELD }}Assisted a multinational contractor in preparing more than 100 million euro in contractual claims arising out of the construction of a third-generation nuclear reactor in Western Europe{{ FIELD }}Defended a Eurasian state petroleum company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the design and installation of an underground natural gas storage facility{{ FIELD }}Defended to a multinational EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration with a subcontractor over the construction of a power plant in Mexico{{ FIELD }}Energy\nActing for a multinational petroleum company in a nine-figure ICC arbitration arising out an Eastern European state's breach of contractual stabilisation provisions in an offshore gas concession contract{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil \u0026amp; gas company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against an Asian sovereign state relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC{{ FIELD }}Advising one of the world's largest oil and gas service providers in litigation over alleged defects in well completion equipment, with claims valued in excess of 60 million euro{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete victory for an international turbine service provider in an SCC arbitration brought by an Russian power plant operator seeking almost 160 million euro in compensation for alleged breaches of service agreements{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a multinational supplier of turbines in an SCC arbitration brought by a Russian power plant developer arising out of the supplier’s exercise of its termination rights and retention of a contractual termination fee, with claims valued at USD 20 million{{ FIELD }}Defended a UK-based heavy equipment supplier in an ICC mediation and arbitration arising out of alleged defects in electrical equipment installed in a fleet of modular power plants{{ FIELD }}Represented a UK-based industrial company in an AAA arbitration arising out of the installation of aluminum recycling equipment in a U.S. recycling facility{{ FIELD }}Investment\nRepresenting an international airline in an ICSID arbitration against Venezuela arising out of Venezuela’s failure to permit the repatriation of the airline's locally generated profits{{ FIELD }}Representing European and Asian investors in multiple ICSID arbitrations against Romania under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of changes to Romania’s “green certificate” incentive program enacted to stimulate investment in the renewable energy industry{{ FIELD }}Represented Ukrainian investors in five arbitrations against the Russian Federation under the Russia-Ukraine BIT arising out of measures carried out by the Russian Federation in connection with its annexation of Crimea{{ FIELD }}Represented Rosinvestco UK Ltd., a UK investment fund, in an arbitration against the Russian Federation under the UK-Russia BIT arising out of Russia’s expropriation of Yukos assets{{ FIELD }}Mergers and Acquisitions/Joint Ventures\nRepresented a multinational manufacturer of steam turbines in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner over the misappropriation of technology and mismanagement of an Indian joint venture{{ FIELD }}Represented a French-based multinational in an ICC arbitration arising out of the sale and valuation of an industrial business{{ FIELD }}Licensing, Agency, and Distributorship\nRepresented a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration over licensing rights for a Brazilian trademark and pharmaceutical product{{ FIELD }}Defended a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the termination of an agency agreement for the promotion of pharmaceutical products in North Africa{{ FIELD }}Defense/Information Technology\nDefended a U.S. defense contractor in an ICC arbitration against a European defense contractor arising out of alleged defects in equipment furnished for installation in missiles{{ FIELD }}Represented a French-based consulting company in an ICC arbitration against an Indian IT company for breach of contract{{ FIELD }}Compliance\nDefended an international energy services supply contractor in an LCIA arbitration arising out of the non-payment of consultant commissions due to compliance concerns{{ FIELD }}Marc-Olivier Langlois is a partner in our Paris office. He regularly represents the world’s largest companies in complex international arbitrations arising out of infrastructure and energy projects, international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.\nLegal 500 has described Marc-Olivier as “outstanding,” noting his “excellent drafting and pleading skills” and ranking him “among the ‘few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts’.”\nMarc-Olivier has twenty years’ experience representing international companies and individuals in commercial and investment treaty arbitrations brought under the ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SCC, ICSID, and UNCITRAL Rules. \nMarc-Olivier specializes in complex disputes arising out of international energy and infrastructure projects.  He eschews a one-size-fits-all approach to dispute resolution, preferring to work closely with clients’ internal teams and outside experts to develop tailor-made strategies for efficiently resolving specific disputes.   Clients value his ability to simplify complicated technical issues and craft winning legal arguments that take into account their commercial priorities and risks.  Marc-Olivier regularly acts for clients in the electrical power generation, oil and gas, nuclear, and renewables industries.\nMarc-Olivier also acts in disputes arising out of international investments, mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, pharmaceutical licensing and distribution agreements, defense and technology disputes, and compliance issues.  Among other things, he was part of a team of attorneys that obtained the first international awards finding the Russian Federation responsible for expropriating assets belonging to Yukos Oil Company and to Ukrainian investors following the Russian Federation’s takeover of Crimea.\nA U.S.-trained lawyer and member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Paris, Marc-Olivier practiced international arbitration for many years at another international law firm in Paris, where he was the co-head of its international construction disputes practice and the managing partner of its Paris office. \nMarc-Olivier was raised and educated in the United States and France. He speaks English and French fluently. Partner Recognized for international arbitration Chambers Global and Chambers France, 2024-2025 Recognized as one of the world's leading international arbitration practitioners Lexology Index France, 2025 “[P]rovides very reliable advice on the litigation strategy and has pretty exceptional drafting skills” Chambers Global, 2024 Recommended for International Arbitration every year since 2010  Legal 500 “‘Outstanding’ . . . ranks among the ‘few civil and common law lawyers able to cross-examine witnesses and experts’” Legal 500 EMEA “[K]nows the clients very well and also has institutional knowledge of our work” Chambers Global 2024 “Excellent drafting and pleading skills”  Legal 500 EMEA “[V]ery good at understanding technical details and at working with experts to come up with convincing arguments”  Legal 500 EMEA Repeatedly recognized in Best Lawyers in France for International Arbitration and Construction Law  Best Lawyers in France, 2023 - 2026 Named to the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide  Lawdragon, 2023 University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris  College of William and Mary William \u0026amp; Mary Law School District of Columbia Virginia Paris Vice Chair, Executive Committee, Foundation for International Arbitration Advocacy (FIAA) Former Member, Arbitrator Nominations Committee, USCIB Arbitration Committee Law Clerk, the Honorable James H. Michael, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia Construction\nRepresenting a Spanish infrastructure contractor in an ICSID arbitration against Kuwait seeking more than USD 300 million in compensation for delays and disruption occurring during the construction of an elevated roadway in Kuwait City Assisting an Asian EPC contractor in preparing more than USD 270 million worth of contractual claims arising out of the construction of a power plant in Algeria Represented a multinational supplier of turbines in an AFSA arbitration with a South African EPC contractor arising out of a power plant owner’s exercise of its step-in rights in respect of the subcontract between the supplier and the EPC contractor, with claims valued at USD 20 million Represented a U.S.-based contractor in relation to arbitration claims arising out of the design and installation of undersea pipelines between oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico Represented a multinational EPC contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of the commissioning of a power plant in Eastern Europe and the related termination of an EPC Contract, with claims valued in excess of 200 million euro Assisted a multinational contractor in preparing more than 100 million euro in contractual claims arising out of the construction of a third-generation nuclear reactor in Western Europe Defended a Eurasian state petroleum company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the design and installation of an underground natural gas storage facility Defended to a multinational EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration with a subcontractor over the construction of a power plant in Mexico Energy\nActing for a multinational petroleum company in a nine-figure ICC arbitration arising out an Eastern European state's breach of contractual stabilisation provisions in an offshore gas concession contract Representing an oil \u0026amp; gas company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against an Asian sovereign state relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC Advising one of the world's largest oil and gas service providers in litigation over alleged defects in well completion equipment, with claims valued in excess of 60 million euro Obtained a complete victory for an international turbine service provider in an SCC arbitration brought by an Russian power plant operator seeking almost 160 million euro in compensation for alleged breaches of service agreements Successfully defended a multinational supplier of turbines in an SCC arbitration brought by a Russian power plant developer arising out of the supplier’s exercise of its termination rights and retention of a contractual termination fee, with claims valued at USD 20 million Defended a UK-based heavy equipment supplier in an ICC mediation and arbitration arising out of alleged defects in electrical equipment installed in a fleet of modular power plants Represented a UK-based industrial company in an AAA arbitration arising out of the installation of aluminum recycling equipment in a U.S. recycling facility Investment\nRepresenting an international airline in an ICSID arbitration against Venezuela arising out of Venezuela’s failure to permit the repatriation of the airline's locally generated profits Representing European and Asian investors in multiple ICSID arbitrations against Romania under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of changes to Romania’s “green certificate” incentive program enacted to stimulate investment in the renewable energy industry Represented Ukrainian investors in five arbitrations against the Russian Federation under the Russia-Ukraine BIT arising out of measures carried out by the Russian Federation in connection with its annexation of Crimea Represented Rosinvestco UK Ltd., a UK investment fund, in an arbitration against the Russian Federation under the UK-Russia BIT arising out of Russia’s expropriation of Yukos assets Mergers and Acquisitions/Joint Ventures\nRepresented a multinational manufacturer of steam turbines in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner over the misappropriation of technology and mismanagement of an Indian joint venture Represented a French-based multinational in an ICC arbitration arising out of the sale and valuation of an industrial business Licensing, Agency, and Distributorship\nRepresented a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration over licensing rights for a Brazilian trademark and pharmaceutical product Defended a European pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration arising out of the termination of an agency agreement for the promotion of pharmaceutical products in North Africa Defense/Information Technology\nDefended a U.S. defense contractor in an ICC arbitration against a European defense contractor arising out of alleged defects in equipment furnished for installation in missiles Represented a French-based consulting company in an ICC arbitration against an Indian IT company for breach of contract Compliance\nDefended an international energy services supply contractor in an LCIA arbitration arising out of the non-payment of consultant commissions due to compliance concerns","searchable_name":"Marc-Olivier Langlois","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":426372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3032,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office.\u0026nbsp; She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.\u0026nbsp; She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.\u0026nbsp; She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.\u0026nbsp; She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.\u0026nbsp; She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathryn-lehman","email":"klehman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company \u003c/em\u003e(three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWebb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lehman","nick_name":"Kathryn","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathryn","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office.\u0026nbsp; She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.\u0026nbsp; She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.\u0026nbsp; She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.\u0026nbsp; She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.\u0026nbsp; She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company \u003c/em\u003e(three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWebb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/em\u003e (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":991}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:01.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Lehman{{ FIELD }}Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Kogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Shulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Gray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Webb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%).{{ FIELD }}Banks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Clark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases) (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013).{{ FIELD }}Cumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Kathryn Lehman is a trial lawyer in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Atlanta office.  She is a member of the Tort Litigation and Environmental Group.  Ms. Lehman focuses her practice on high-risk cases involving punitive damages.  She has defended clients in the consumer products, medical device, professional services, food service and transportation industries.\nMs. Lehman divides her time between preparing cases for trial and trying cases.  Ms. Lehman is an expert at conducting goal-driven discovery, including fact and expert discovery.  She has spent significant time studying plaintiffs' trial strategies, so that she is able to employ those same strategies on behalf of her clients.  She leverages her trial experience to help clients achieve their goals, whether their goal is an advantageous settlement, dispositive motion or trial. \nMs. Lehman has worked on trial teams that have tried more than two dozen cases to verdict over the last decade.  She is skilled at developing trial strategy, including pre-trial motions practice, voir dire, opening statement, direct and cross examination, and closing argument. Partner North Carolina State University  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Florida Georgia Massachusetts North Carolina Nevada Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Hillsborough County, Florida, March 2018, defense verdict). Kogan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, May-June 2017, defense verdict). Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Palm Beach County, August-September 2016, defense verdict). Shulman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (six-week trial in Palm Beach County, Florida, October-November 2015, defense verdict). Gray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Escambia County, Florida, May 2015, defense verdict). Webb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week re-trial of amount of compensatory and punitive damages only in Levy County, Florida, November 2014, original verdict amount reduced by 98%). Banks v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (four-week trial in Broward County, Florida, February 2014, defense verdict). Clark v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (two-week trial in Alachua County, Florida, June 2013, defense verdict). In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases) (five-week mass tort trial in West Virginia, April-May 2013). Cumbess v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (three-week trial in Suwanee County, Florida, November-December 2012, defense verdict).","searchable_name":"Kathryn S. Lehman","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446905,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2722,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVal Leppert is a legal strategist and first-chair appellate lawyer. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \"an accomplished appellate litigator,\" Val has obtained the reversal or vacatur of numerous adverse judgments\u0026nbsp;and has also prevailed in dozens of other matters. He has represented businesses across an array of industries, including airline, automotive, energy, healthcare, insurance, private equity, real estate, technology, and transportation. But Val\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in consumer products, having worked extensively in tobacco litigation while also representing companies in matters pertaining to alcohol, construction materials, and talcum powder.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e has recommended Val\u0026nbsp;for the defense of consumer products, including for \u0026ldquo;his appellate skills\" as documented by his \"string of notable appellate victories, saving [his clients] significant financial burdens.\"\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn some matters, Val steps into the case on appeal.\u0026nbsp; But in most instances, Val works alongside the trial teams from the inception of the case, devising the legal strategy from the pleadings stage through post-trial motions and appeal.\u0026nbsp;Using this format, he frequently develops new and creative arguments and has secured a number of victories in pretrial proceedings, such as the dismissal of his clients before trial or limitations on the other side\u0026rsquo;s claims.\u0026nbsp; If a case makes it to trial, Val often serves as legal issues counsel, helping the team shape the case by obtaining favorable evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. This integrated approach, where Val is embedded with the trial team, is frequently the foundation for success in post-trial and appellate proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he is resident in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta and Miami offices, Val works on cases throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; He has argued matters from Pittsburgh (Pa) to Portland (Or)\u0026nbsp;and from St. Paul (Minn) all the way down to the Southernmost courthouse in the Florida Keys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVal served as law clerk to the Honorable Frank M. Hull, United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; He graduated, magna cum laude, from Mercer University School of Law where he received the George W. Woodruff Award of Excellence as the top-ranked student in his class.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Val served as Articles Editor of the Mercer Law Review and as Research Assistant to Professor Harold S. Lewis, Jr.\u0026nbsp; While in college, he was named the 2004 Upper Midwest Athletic Conference South Most Valuable Player on Offense after quarterbacking Westminster College (Mo) to consecutive football conference championships.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; He was inducted into the Westminster Athletic Hall of Fame in 2019.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVal is a native of Frankfurt, Germany, and is fluent in German.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"valentin-leppert","email":"vleppert@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented automotive company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk auto defect case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eShneyer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. CGC-23-605454 (Superior Ct., County of San Francisco, Ca., Dec. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted writ of mandamus to quash order requiring payment of sanction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial District in and for County of Clark\u003c/em\u003e, 580 P.3d 1286 (Nev. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained dismissal with prejudice by convincing appellate court to reverse denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Medicare Secondary Payer Act case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColoplast Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 415 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to jury selection procedure.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 415 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented law firm: obtained rarely granted writ of certiorari to quash adverse trial court order.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association\u003c/em\u003e, 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to special jury instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 406 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: assisted trial team in obtaining defense verdict in consumer product trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFelton v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, No. GD 23-008055 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas, Allegheny Cnty 2025) (appeal pending)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: obtained new trial and vacatur of $260 million jury award in light of attorney misconduct.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLee v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 23-CV-40369 (Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, Nov. 25, 2024) (appeal pending).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented marketing organization: obtained 9-0 state high court victory reversing lower court decisions that had invalidated non-recruitment clause for lack of territorial term in business dispute\u003cem\u003e. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer\u003c/em\u003e, 319 Ga. 641, 906 S.E. 2d 373 (2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims of negligent marketing and negligent storage of medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAnsel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al\u003c/em\u003e, No. CACE22014165 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Italian car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVon Eisenberg v. Automobili Lamborghini, S.p.A\u003c/em\u003e, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented British car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVon Eisenberg v. Bentley Motors Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of trial court order denying request to add a claim for punitive damages.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHartbauer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 391 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: obtained summary judgment on claim for punitive damages and then supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict on remaining claims.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMatthey v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2018-CA-004809-NC (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict in product case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHarcourt v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. CACE-17-20297 (08) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae: provided amicus support for appellate reversal of certification of nationwide PFAS class in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re E. I. du Pont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 87 F.4th 315 (6th Cir. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment in product case based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's key expert testimony.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCantrell v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 76 F.4th 1113 (8th Cir. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: supported trial team in obtaining a complete defense verdict in high-risk product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCho v. Shashoua et al\u003c/em\u003e, No. D-1-GN-20-002000 (Travis County, Texas 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of novel claim of conspiracy between drug manufacturers.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eValdes v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2021-021945-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Brazilian Airline: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in complex business dispute. Z\u003cem\u003eGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, S.A\u003c/em\u003e., 366 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on fraud claims in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2008-00310-CA-27 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multinational financial group: obtained complete appellate victory in complex business dispute involving mortgage-backed securities; secured affirmance of summary judgment on several breach of contract, fraud, and RICO claims; secured reversal of denial of summary judgment on unique fraud theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOverlook Gardens Properties v. ORIX, USA\u003c/em\u003e, 884 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. App. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of dismissal of pure bill of discovery for lack of personal jurisdiction in secondary payor claim.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 353 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's specific causation expert in medical device lawsuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e21-11768, --- F. App'x---, 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCamacho v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, No. A-19-807650-C (Clark County, Nev., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case based on exclusion of plaintiff's causation expert.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJames v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., CV 20-654 (JRT/TNL), 2022 WL 4465956 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae; provided amicus support for successful Rule 23(f) petition for appellate review of certification in nationwide PFAS class action.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re E.I. DuPont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig\u003c/em\u003e., 22-0305, 2022 WL 4149090 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained dismissal of clams for fraud, failure-to-warn, and negligent design and supported trial team in obtaining favorable result on remaining claim.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhelps v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2020-005579-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCantrell v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 2022 WL 2806390 (D. Minn. July 18, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of multi-million dollar judgment based on amendment of tort reform statute in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan Estate of Kapla\u003c/em\u003en, 336 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of judgment that included $20 million in punitive damages in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mattson Estate of Konzelman\u003c/em\u003e, 336 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $42.5 million judgment in light of error during jury selection.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger\u003c/em\u003e, 338 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRogers v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 2022 WL 252420 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pro-bono client: obtained appellate reversal of dismissal of habeas claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDavila v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 21-11359-V, 2022 WL 1236828 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff\u003c/em\u003e, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1603, 2022 WL 1261381 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $37.5 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mahfuz\u003c/em\u003e, 324 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1551, 2022 WL 1153496 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAlmond v. Coloplast A/S\u003c/em\u003e, 2021 WL 2042659 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in high-risk trial after obtaining an adverse inference instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1210, 2021 WL 6140352 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer product company: obtained appellate reversal of $16 million in light of improper jury instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon\u003c/em\u003e, 313 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical device company: obtained summary judgment on failure to warn claims and on punitive damages in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNunez v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 461 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product: obtained appellate reversal of $18.5 million judgment in light of improperly admitted evidence.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA, Inc. v. Gloger\u003c/em\u003e, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted appellate writ to disqualify the trial judge from a number of cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Alonso\u003c/em\u003e, 268 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained reversal of punitive damages award in light of novel argument under tort reform statute.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Martin\u003c/em\u003e, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained order granting new trial and vacating multi-million judgment in light of improper arguments; obtained appellate affirmance of same order.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOshinsky-Blacker v. Philip Morris USA Inc\u003c/em\u003e., 249 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained transfer of venue from high-risk county to lower risk venue; then obtained appellate affirmance of same.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMuro v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment based on statute of limitations in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGuarch v. Philip Morris USA Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 02-03308-CA-22 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-14649 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 244 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMobley\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-CA-1709-K (Fla. 16th Cir. Ct. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOrtiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 08-00084-CA08 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10.5 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McCoy\u003c/em\u003e, 229 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari\u003c/em\u003e, 228 So. 3d 115, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCapone v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2005-010312-CA-24 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2017)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHaliburton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 230 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 22, 2017) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWilkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 15-2007-CA-20 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of seven-figure award in attorney fees.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb\u003c/em\u003e, 187 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk tobacco trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRobertson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-CV-036442 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2015)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained state high-court affirmance of defense victory in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSmith v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 410 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 12-01326-CV-W-GAF, 2013 WL 12075967 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained state high-court reversal of summary judgment on nonparty fault defense in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Pacific, LLC v. Fields\u003c/em\u003e, 293 Ga. 499, 748 S.E. 2d 407 (2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer product company: supported trial team in obtaining an almost complete defense verdict in common-issues phase of mass-tort trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e, No. 00-CA-5000 (Kanawha County, West Va., 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented beverage company: obtained dismissal of mass action against alcohol manufacturers for lack of jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting\u003c/em\u003e, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Neb. 2012)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eToole v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 7938847 (Ga. App. Jan 19, 2011)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted stay of state court judgment pending US Supreme Court review in product-liability class action.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 1 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Leppert","nick_name":"Val","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"}],"first_name":"Val","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVal Leppert is a legal strategist and first-chair appellate lawyer. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \"an accomplished appellate litigator,\" Val has obtained the reversal or vacatur of numerous adverse judgments\u0026nbsp;and has also prevailed in dozens of other matters. He has represented businesses across an array of industries, including airline, automotive, energy, healthcare, insurance, private equity, real estate, technology, and transportation. But Val\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in consumer products, having worked extensively in tobacco litigation while also representing companies in matters pertaining to alcohol, construction materials, and talcum powder.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e has recommended Val\u0026nbsp;for the defense of consumer products, including for \u0026ldquo;his appellate skills\" as documented by his \"string of notable appellate victories, saving [his clients] significant financial burdens.\"\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn some matters, Val steps into the case on appeal.\u0026nbsp; But in most instances, Val works alongside the trial teams from the inception of the case, devising the legal strategy from the pleadings stage through post-trial motions and appeal.\u0026nbsp;Using this format, he frequently develops new and creative arguments and has secured a number of victories in pretrial proceedings, such as the dismissal of his clients before trial or limitations on the other side\u0026rsquo;s claims.\u0026nbsp; If a case makes it to trial, Val often serves as legal issues counsel, helping the team shape the case by obtaining favorable evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. This integrated approach, where Val is embedded with the trial team, is frequently the foundation for success in post-trial and appellate proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he is resident in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta and Miami offices, Val works on cases throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; He has argued matters from Pittsburgh (Pa) to Portland (Or)\u0026nbsp;and from St. Paul (Minn) all the way down to the Southernmost courthouse in the Florida Keys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVal served as law clerk to the Honorable Frank M. Hull, United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; He graduated, magna cum laude, from Mercer University School of Law where he received the George W. Woodruff Award of Excellence as the top-ranked student in his class.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Val served as Articles Editor of the Mercer Law Review and as Research Assistant to Professor Harold S. Lewis, Jr.\u0026nbsp; While in college, he was named the 2004 Upper Midwest Athletic Conference South Most Valuable Player on Offense after quarterbacking Westminster College (Mo) to consecutive football conference championships.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; He was inducted into the Westminster Athletic Hall of Fame in 2019.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVal is a native of Frankfurt, Germany, and is fluent in German.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented automotive company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk auto defect case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eShneyer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. CGC-23-605454 (Superior Ct., County of San Francisco, Ca., Dec. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted writ of mandamus to quash order requiring payment of sanction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial District in and for County of Clark\u003c/em\u003e, 580 P.3d 1286 (Nev. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained dismissal with prejudice by convincing appellate court to reverse denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Medicare Secondary Payer Act case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColoplast Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 415 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to jury selection procedure.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 415 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented law firm: obtained rarely granted writ of certiorari to quash adverse trial court order.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association\u003c/em\u003e, 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to special jury instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 406 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: assisted trial team in obtaining defense verdict in consumer product trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFelton v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, No. GD 23-008055 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas, Allegheny Cnty 2025) (appeal pending)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: obtained new trial and vacatur of $260 million jury award in light of attorney misconduct.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLee v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 23-CV-40369 (Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, Nov. 25, 2024) (appeal pending).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented marketing organization: obtained 9-0 state high court victory reversing lower court decisions that had invalidated non-recruitment clause for lack of territorial term in business dispute\u003cem\u003e. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer\u003c/em\u003e, 319 Ga. 641, 906 S.E. 2d 373 (2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims of negligent marketing and negligent storage of medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAnsel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al\u003c/em\u003e, No. CACE22014165 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Italian car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVon Eisenberg v. Automobili Lamborghini, S.p.A\u003c/em\u003e, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented British car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVon Eisenberg v. Bentley Motors Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of trial court order denying request to add a claim for punitive damages.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHartbauer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 391 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented healthcare company: obtained summary judgment on claim for punitive damages and then supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict on remaining claims.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMatthey v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2018-CA-004809-NC (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict in product case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHarcourt v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. CACE-17-20297 (08) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae: provided amicus support for appellate reversal of certification of nationwide PFAS class in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re E. I. du Pont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 87 F.4th 315 (6th Cir. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment in product case based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's key expert testimony.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCantrell v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 76 F.4th 1113 (8th Cir. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: supported trial team in obtaining a complete defense verdict in high-risk product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCho v. Shashoua et al\u003c/em\u003e, No. D-1-GN-20-002000 (Travis County, Texas 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of novel claim of conspiracy between drug manufacturers.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eValdes v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2021-021945-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Brazilian Airline: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in complex business dispute. Z\u003cem\u003eGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, S.A\u003c/em\u003e., 366 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on fraud claims in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2008-00310-CA-27 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multinational financial group: obtained complete appellate victory in complex business dispute involving mortgage-backed securities; secured affirmance of summary judgment on several breach of contract, fraud, and RICO claims; secured reversal of denial of summary judgment on unique fraud theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOverlook Gardens Properties v. ORIX, USA\u003c/em\u003e, 884 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. App. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of dismissal of pure bill of discovery for lack of personal jurisdiction in secondary payor claim.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 353 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's specific causation expert in medical device lawsuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e21-11768, --- F. App'x---, 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCamacho v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, No. A-19-807650-C (Clark County, Nev., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case based on exclusion of plaintiff's causation expert.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJames v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., CV 20-654 (JRT/TNL), 2022 WL 4465956 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae; provided amicus support for successful Rule 23(f) petition for appellate review of certification in nationwide PFAS class action.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re E.I. DuPont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig\u003c/em\u003e., 22-0305, 2022 WL 4149090 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained dismissal of clams for fraud, failure-to-warn, and negligent design and supported trial team in obtaining favorable result on remaining claim.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhelps v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2020-005579-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCantrell v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 2022 WL 2806390 (D. Minn. July 18, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of multi-million dollar judgment based on amendment of tort reform statute in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan Estate of Kapla\u003c/em\u003en, 336 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of judgment that included $20 million in punitive damages in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mattson Estate of Konzelman\u003c/em\u003e, 336 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $42.5 million judgment in light of error during jury selection.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger\u003c/em\u003e, 338 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRogers v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 2022 WL 252420 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented pro-bono client: obtained appellate reversal of dismissal of habeas claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDavila v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 21-11359-V, 2022 WL 1236828 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff\u003c/em\u003e, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1603, 2022 WL 1261381 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $37.5 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mahfuz\u003c/em\u003e, 324 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1551, 2022 WL 1153496 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAlmond v. Coloplast A/S\u003c/em\u003e, 2021 WL 2042659 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in high-risk trial after obtaining an adverse inference instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereview denied\u003c/em\u003e, SC21-1210, 2021 WL 6140352 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer product company: obtained appellate reversal of $16 million in light of improper jury instruction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon\u003c/em\u003e, 313 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented medical device company: obtained summary judgment on failure to warn claims and on punitive damages in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNunez v. Coloplast Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 461 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product: obtained appellate reversal of $18.5 million judgment in light of improperly admitted evidence.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA, Inc. v. Gloger\u003c/em\u003e, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted appellate writ to disqualify the trial judge from a number of cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Alonso\u003c/em\u003e, 268 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained reversal of punitive damages award in light of novel argument under tort reform statute.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Martin\u003c/em\u003e, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained order granting new trial and vacating multi-million judgment in light of improper arguments; obtained appellate affirmance of same order.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOshinsky-Blacker v. Philip Morris USA Inc\u003c/em\u003e., 249 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained transfer of venue from high-risk county to lower risk venue; then obtained appellate affirmance of same.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMuro v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment based on statute of limitations in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGuarch v. Philip Morris USA Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 02-03308-CA-22 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-14649 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 244 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMobley\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-CA-1709-K (Fla. 16th Cir. Ct. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOrtiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 08-00084-CA08 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10.5 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McCoy\u003c/em\u003e, 229 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari\u003c/em\u003e, 228 So. 3d 115, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCapone v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2005-010312-CA-24 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2017)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHaliburton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 230 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 22, 2017) (per curiam)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWilkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 15-2007-CA-20 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of seven-figure award in attorney fees.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb\u003c/em\u003e, 187 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk tobacco trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRobertson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2007-CV-036442 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2015)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained state high-court affirmance of defense victory in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSmith v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 410 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co\u003c/em\u003e., 12-01326-CV-W-GAF, 2013 WL 12075967 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained state high-court reversal of summary judgment on nonparty fault defense in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Pacific, LLC v. Fields\u003c/em\u003e, 293 Ga. 499, 748 S.E. 2d 407 (2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer product company: supported trial team in obtaining an almost complete defense verdict in common-issues phase of mass-tort trial.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases)\u003c/em\u003e, No. 00-CA-5000 (Kanawha County, West Va., 2013)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented beverage company: obtained dismissal of mass action against alcohol manufacturers for lack of jurisdiction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting\u003c/em\u003e, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Neb. 2012)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product-liability case.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eToole v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 7938847 (Ga. App. Jan 19, 2011)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted stay of state court judgment pending US Supreme Court review in product-liability class action.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott\u003c/em\u003e, 131 S. Ct. 1 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers)\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":995}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-20T19:00:37.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-20T19:00:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Leppert{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented automotive company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk auto defect case. Shneyer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. CGC-23-605454 (Superior Ct., County of San Francisco, Ca., Dec. 2025).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted writ of mandamus to quash order requiring payment of sanction. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial District in and for County of Clark, 580 P.3d 1286 (Nev. 2025).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained dismissal with prejudice by convincing appellate court to reverse denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Medicare Secondary Payer Act case. Coloplast Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, LLC, 415 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to jury selection procedure. Sikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 415 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented law firm: obtained rarely granted writ of certiorari to quash adverse trial court order. In re Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to special jury instruction. Neff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 406 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented healthcare company: assisted trial team in obtaining defense verdict in consumer product trial. Felton v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, No. GD 23-008055 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas, Allegheny Cnty 2025) (appeal pending){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented healthcare company: obtained new trial and vacatur of $260 million jury award in light of attorney misconduct. Lee v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, Case No. 23-CV-40369 (Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, Nov. 25, 2024) (appeal pending).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented marketing organization: obtained 9-0 state high court victory reversing lower court decisions that had invalidated non-recruitment clause for lack of territorial term in business dispute. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, 319 Ga. 641, 906 S.E. 2d 373 (2024).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims of negligent marketing and negligent storage of medication. Ansel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al, No. CACE22014165 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Italian car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Von Eisenberg v. Automobili Lamborghini, S.p.A, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented British car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Von Eisenberg v. Bentley Motors Limited, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of trial court order denying request to add a claim for punitive damages. Hartbauer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 391 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented healthcare company: obtained summary judgment on claim for punitive damages and then supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict on remaining claims. Matthey v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, No. 2018-CA-004809-NC (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. 2024).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict in product case. Harcourt v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, No. CACE-17-20297 (08) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae: provided amicus support for appellate reversal of certification of nationwide PFAS class in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., 87 F.4th 315 (6th Cir. 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment in product case based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's key expert testimony. Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 76 F.4th 1113 (8th Cir. 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: supported trial team in obtaining a complete defense verdict in high-risk product liability case. Cho v. Shashoua et al, No. D-1-GN-20-002000 (Travis County, Texas 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of novel claim of conspiracy between drug manufacturers. Valdes v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2021-021945-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Brazilian Airline: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in complex business dispute. ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, S.A., 366 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on fraud claims in product liability case. Sikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2008-00310-CA-27 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented multinational financial group: obtained complete appellate victory in complex business dispute involving mortgage-backed securities; secured affirmance of summary judgment on several breach of contract, fraud, and RICO claims; secured reversal of denial of summary judgment on unique fraud theory. Overlook Gardens Properties v. ORIX, USA, 884 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. App. 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of dismissal of pure bill of discovery for lack of personal jurisdiction in secondary payor claim. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp., 353 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's specific causation expert in medical device lawsuit. Arevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 21-11768, --- F. App'x---, 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product-liability case. Camacho v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. A-19-807650-C (Clark County, Nev., 2022).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case based on exclusion of plaintiff's causation expert. James v. Coloplast Corp., CV 20-654 (JRT/TNL), 2022 WL 4465956 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae; provided amicus support for successful Rule 23(f) petition for appellate review of certification in nationwide PFAS class action. In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., 22-0305, 2022 WL 4149090 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained dismissal of clams for fraud, failure-to-warn, and negligent design and supported trial team in obtaining favorable result on remaining claim. Phelps v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2020-005579-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2022).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case. Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 2022 WL 2806390 (D. Minn. July 18, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of multi-million dollar judgment based on amendment of tort reform statute in product-liability case. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan Estate of Kaplan, 336 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of judgment that included $20 million in punitive damages in product liability case. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mattson Estate of Konzelman, 336 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $42.5 million judgment in light of error during jury selection. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger, 338 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rogers v. Coloplast Corp., 2022 WL 252420 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented pro-bono client: obtained appellate reversal of dismissal of habeas claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Davila v. United States, 21-11359-V, 2022 WL 1236828 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1603, 2022 WL 1261381 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $37.5 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mahfuz, 324 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1551, 2022 WL 1153496 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2022){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction. Almond v. Coloplast A/S, 2021 WL 2042659 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2021){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in high-risk trial after obtaining an adverse inference instruction. Adamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1210, 2021 WL 6140352 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2021){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer product company: obtained appellate reversal of $16 million in light of improper jury instruction. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon, 313 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented medical device company: obtained summary judgment on failure to warn claims and on punitive damages in product liability case. Nunez v. Coloplast Corp., 461 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2020).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product: obtained appellate reversal of $18.5 million judgment in light of improperly admitted evidence. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Gloger, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted appellate writ to disqualify the trial judge from a number of cases. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Alonso, 268 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained reversal of punitive damages award in light of novel argument under tort reform statute. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained order granting new trial and vacating multi-million judgment in light of improper arguments; obtained appellate affirmance of same order. Oshinsky-Blacker v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 249 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained transfer of venue from high-risk county to lower risk venue; then obtained appellate affirmance of same. Muro v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 245 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment based on statute of limitations in product-liability case. Guarch v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 02-03308-CA-22 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-14649 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. 2018){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations. Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 244 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Mobley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-CA-1709-K (Fla. 16th Cir. Ct. 2018){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict on statute of limitations. Ortiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-00084-CA08 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018){{ FIELD }}Successful represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10.5 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McCoy, 229 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case. Capone v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 2005-010312-CA-24 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2017){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations. Haliburton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 230 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 22, 2017) (per curiam){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Wilkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 15-2007-CA-20 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2016){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of seven-figure award in attorney fees. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 187 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk tobacco trial. Robertson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-CV-036442 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2015){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained state high-court affirmance of defense victory in product liability case. Smith v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Corp., 410 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. 2013){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case. Thompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 12-01326-CV-W-GAF, 2013 WL 12075967 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2013){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained state high-court reversal of summary judgment on nonparty fault defense in product-liability case. Georgia Pacific, LLC v. Fields, 293 Ga. 499, 748 S.E. 2d 407 (2013){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer product company: supported trial team in obtaining an almost complete defense verdict in common-issues phase of mass-tort trial. In re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases), No. 00-CA-5000 (Kanawha County, West Va., 2013){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented beverage company: obtained dismissal of mass action against alcohol manufacturers for lack of jurisdiction. Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Neb. 2012){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product-liability case. Toole v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 2011 WL 7938847 (Ga. App. Jan 19, 2011){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted stay of state court judgment pending US Supreme Court review in product-liability class action. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott, 131 S. Ct. 1 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers){{ FIELD }}Val Leppert is a legal strategist and first-chair appellate lawyer. Recognized by Chambers \u0026amp; Partners as \"an accomplished appellate litigator,\" Val has obtained the reversal or vacatur of numerous adverse judgments and has also prevailed in dozens of other matters. He has represented businesses across an array of industries, including airline, automotive, energy, healthcare, insurance, private equity, real estate, technology, and transportation. But Val has developed particular expertise in consumer products, having worked extensively in tobacco litigation while also representing companies in matters pertaining to alcohol, construction materials, and talcum powder. Legal 500 has recommended Val for the defense of consumer products, including for “his appellate skills\" as documented by his \"string of notable appellate victories, saving [his clients] significant financial burdens.\" \nIn some matters, Val steps into the case on appeal.  But in most instances, Val works alongside the trial teams from the inception of the case, devising the legal strategy from the pleadings stage through post-trial motions and appeal. Using this format, he frequently develops new and creative arguments and has secured a number of victories in pretrial proceedings, such as the dismissal of his clients before trial or limitations on the other side’s claims.  If a case makes it to trial, Val often serves as legal issues counsel, helping the team shape the case by obtaining favorable evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. This integrated approach, where Val is embedded with the trial team, is frequently the foundation for success in post-trial and appellate proceedings. \nAlthough he is resident in the firm’s Atlanta and Miami offices, Val works on cases throughout the United States.  He has argued matters from Pittsburgh (Pa) to Portland (Or) and from St. Paul (Minn) all the way down to the Southernmost courthouse in the Florida Keys.\nVal served as law clerk to the Honorable Frank M. Hull, United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  He graduated, magna cum laude, from Mercer University School of Law where he received the George W. Woodruff Award of Excellence as the top-ranked student in his class.  While in law school, Val served as Articles Editor of the Mercer Law Review and as Research Assistant to Professor Harold S. Lewis, Jr.  While in college, he was named the 2004 Upper Midwest Athletic Conference South Most Valuable Player on Offense after quarterbacking Westminster College (Mo) to consecutive football conference championships.   He was inducted into the Westminster Athletic Hall of Fame in 2019. \nVal is a native of Frankfurt, Germany, and is fluent in German. Partner Westminster College  Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Florida Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Georgia Florida Law Clerk, Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Successfully represented automotive company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk auto defect case. Shneyer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. CGC-23-605454 (Superior Ct., County of San Francisco, Ca., Dec. 2025). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted writ of mandamus to quash order requiring payment of sanction. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial District in and for County of Clark, 580 P.3d 1286 (Nev. 2025). Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained dismissal with prejudice by convincing appellate court to reverse denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Medicare Secondary Payer Act case. Coloplast Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, LLC, 415 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). Successfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to jury selection procedure. Sikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 415 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). Successfully represented law firm: obtained rarely granted writ of certiorari to quash adverse trial court order. In re Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). Successfully represented consumer-products company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product liability case over plaintiff's challenge to special jury instruction. Neff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 406 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) Successfully represented healthcare company: assisted trial team in obtaining defense verdict in consumer product trial. Felton v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, No. GD 23-008055 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas, Allegheny Cnty 2025) (appeal pending) Successfully represented healthcare company: obtained new trial and vacatur of $260 million jury award in light of attorney misconduct. Lee v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, Case No. 23-CV-40369 (Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, Nov. 25, 2024) (appeal pending). Successfully represented marketing organization: obtained 9-0 state high court victory reversing lower court decisions that had invalidated non-recruitment clause for lack of territorial term in business dispute. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, 319 Ga. 641, 906 S.E. 2d 373 (2024). Successfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims of negligent marketing and negligent storage of medication. Ansel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al, No. CACE22014165 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024) Successfully represented Italian car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Von Eisenberg v. Automobili Lamborghini, S.p.A, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024). Successfully represented British car manufacturer: obtained dismissal of product liability case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Von Eisenberg v. Bentley Motors Limited, No. CACE-22-014881 (27) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of trial court order denying request to add a claim for punitive damages. Hartbauer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 391 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Successfully represented healthcare company: obtained summary judgment on claim for punitive damages and then supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict on remaining claims. Matthey v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, No. 2018-CA-004809-NC (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. 2024). Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict in product case. Harcourt v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, No. CACE-17-20297 (08) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2024) Successfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae: provided amicus support for appellate reversal of certification of nationwide PFAS class in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., 87 F.4th 315 (6th Cir. 2023). Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment in product case based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's key expert testimony. Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 76 F.4th 1113 (8th Cir. 2023). Successfully represented medical-device company: supported trial team in obtaining a complete defense verdict in high-risk product liability case. Cho v. Shashoua et al, No. D-1-GN-20-002000 (Travis County, Texas 2023). Successfully represented pharmaceutical company: obtained dismissal with prejudice of novel claim of conspiracy between drug manufacturers. Valdes v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2021-021945-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023). Successfully represented Brazilian Airline: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in complex business dispute. ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, S.A., 366 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on fraud claims in product liability case. Sikes v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2008-00310-CA-27 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2023). Successfully represented multinational financial group: obtained complete appellate victory in complex business dispute involving mortgage-backed securities; secured affirmance of summary judgment on several breach of contract, fraud, and RICO claims; secured reversal of denial of summary judgment on unique fraud theory. Overlook Gardens Properties v. ORIX, USA, 884 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. App. 2023). Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained appellate affirmance of dismissal of pure bill of discovery for lack of personal jurisdiction in secondary payor claim. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp., 353 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Successfully represented medical device company: obtained appellate affirmance of summary judgment based on the exclusion of the plaintiff's specific causation expert in medical device lawsuit. Arevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 21-11768, --- F. App'x---, 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product-liability case. Camacho v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. A-19-807650-C (Clark County, Nev., 2022). Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case based on exclusion of plaintiff's causation expert. James v. Coloplast Corp., CV 20-654 (JRT/TNL), 2022 WL 4465956 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2022). Successfully represented US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae; provided amicus support for successful Rule 23(f) petition for appellate review of certification in nationwide PFAS class action. In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours \u0026amp; Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., 22-0305, 2022 WL 4149090 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained dismissal of clams for fraud, failure-to-warn, and negligent design and supported trial team in obtaining favorable result on remaining claim. Phelps v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2020-005579-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2022). Successfully represented medical-device company: obtained summary judgment on all claims in product liability case. Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 2022 WL 2806390 (D. Minn. July 18, 2022). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of multi-million dollar judgment based on amendment of tort reform statute in product-liability case. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan Estate of Kaplan, 336 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of judgment that included $20 million in punitive damages in product liability case. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mattson Estate of Konzelman, 336 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $42.5 million judgment in light of error during jury selection. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger, 338 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) Successfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rogers v. Coloplast Corp., 2022 WL 252420 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022) Successfully represented pro-bono client: obtained appellate reversal of dismissal of habeas claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Davila v. United States, 21-11359-V, 2022 WL 1236828 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1603, 2022 WL 1261381 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $37.5 million judgment in light of improper closing arguments. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mahfuz, 324 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1551, 2022 WL 1153496 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2022) Successfully represented Danish medical-device company: obtained dismissal of foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction. Almond v. Coloplast A/S, 2021 WL 2042659 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2021) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict in high-risk trial after obtaining an adverse inference instruction. Adamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1210, 2021 WL 6140352 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2021) Successfully represented consumer product company: obtained appellate reversal of $16 million in light of improper jury instruction. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon, 313 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) Successfully represented medical device company: obtained summary judgment on failure to warn claims and on punitive damages in product liability case. Nunez v. Coloplast Corp., 461 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Successfully represented consumer-product: obtained appellate reversal of $18.5 million judgment in light of improperly admitted evidence. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Gloger, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted appellate writ to disqualify the trial judge from a number of cases. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Alonso, 268 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained reversal of punitive damages award in light of novel argument under tort reform statute. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained order granting new trial and vacating multi-million judgment in light of improper arguments; obtained appellate affirmance of same order. Oshinsky-Blacker v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 249 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained transfer of venue from high-risk county to lower risk venue; then obtained appellate affirmance of same. Muro v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 245 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment based on statute of limitations in product-liability case. Guarch v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 02-03308-CA-22 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018). Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Gay v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-14649 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. 2018) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations. Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 244 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Mobley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-CA-1709-K (Fla. 16th Cir. Ct. 2018) Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining defense verdict on statute of limitations. Ortiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-00084-CA08 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2018) Successful represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10.5 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McCoy, 229 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of $10 million judgment in light of erroneously admitted government reports. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case. Capone v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 2005-010312-CA-24 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2017) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate affirmance of defense verdict based on statute of limitations. Haliburton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 230 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 22, 2017) (per curiam) Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict. Wilkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 15-2007-CA-20 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2016) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained appellate reversal of seven-figure award in attorney fees. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 187 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) Successfully represented consumer-product company: supported trial team in obtaining complete defense verdict in high-risk tobacco trial. Robertson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-CV-036442 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2015) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained state high-court affirmance of defense victory in product liability case. Smith v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Corp., 410 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. 2013) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained summary judgment in product liability case. Thompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 12-01326-CV-W-GAF, 2013 WL 12075967 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2013) Successfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained state high-court reversal of summary judgment on nonparty fault defense in product-liability case. Georgia Pacific, LLC v. Fields, 293 Ga. 499, 748 S.E. 2d 407 (2013) Successfully represented consumer product company: supported trial team in obtaining an almost complete defense verdict in common-issues phase of mass-tort trial. In re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury Cases), No. 00-CA-5000 (Kanawha County, West Va., 2013) Successfully represented beverage company: obtained dismissal of mass action against alcohol manufacturers for lack of jurisdiction. Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Neb. 2012) Successfully represented manufacturer of construction materials: obtained appellate affirmance of defense victory in product-liability case. Toole v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 2011 WL 7938847 (Ga. App. Jan 19, 2011) Successfully represented consumer-product company: obtained rarely granted stay of state court judgment pending US Supreme Court review in product-liability class action. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott, 131 S. Ct. 1 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers)","searchable_name":"Val Leppert","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":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}]}}