{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"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":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"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 Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"}],"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":2839},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"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":"Bond University","value":2841},{"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":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"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":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"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":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"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":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"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":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"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":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"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 School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"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":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"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":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"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":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"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":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"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":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"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":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"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":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"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":"New York University School of Law","value":2715},{"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":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"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":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"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":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":2725},{"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":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"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 Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"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 del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"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":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"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 Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"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 Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"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 Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"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 Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"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 at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"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 Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"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 Maryland School of Law","value":2739},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"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 New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"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 Sheffield","value":2805},{"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 Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"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":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"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":null,"extra_filter_id":"1256","extra_filter_type":"smart_tag","q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":448703,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T21:53:12.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:53:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","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":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","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":448900,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1263,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-blaschke","email":"mblaschke@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":107}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Blaschke","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":731}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:45.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Blaschke{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.{{ FIELD }}Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.{{ FIELD }}Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.{{ FIELD }}Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.{{ FIELD }}Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.{{ FIELD }}Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.{{ FIELD }}Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.{{ FIELD }}Matt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.\nMatt’s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Matthew J Blaschke Partner Notre Dame  George Washington University George Washington University Law School 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 District of Columbia Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California. Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery. Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects. Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage. Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility. Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow. Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems. Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk. Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel. Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.","searchable_name":"Matthew J. Blaschke (Matt)","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":444643,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5039,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-burnett","email":"zburnett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burnett","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-burnett-2115b148/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Burnett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Staff Editor of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.{{ FIELD }}Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.{{ FIELD }}Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.{{ FIELD }}Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.{{ FIELD }}Zach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office’s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.  His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary focus on toxic torts.\nZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical companies, including in MDL proceedings.  Zach works on multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court, and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments; conducting written discovery; preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.  \nZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.  He also has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment. \nIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active pro bono docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.  Partner Named Staff Editor of the Year  American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas State Bar of Texas Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL. Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general. Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.","searchable_name":"Zachary C. Burnett (Zach)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445975,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3930,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"alexander-calfo","email":"acalfo@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Calfo","nick_name":"Alexander","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Alexander","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":518,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging\u0026nbsp;trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes. \u0026nbsp;He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the \u0026ldquo;Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Los Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.\u0026nbsp; The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Los Angeles office and \u0026ldquo;has been instrumental in building the firm\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality.\u0026nbsp;He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time \u0026ldquo;must watch\u0026rdquo; defense verdict for the entire state of California. \u0026nbsp;Alex was also named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for exceptional legal skill and achievement. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ranks Alex \u0026ldquo;Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer.\u0026nbsp;He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5155},{"id":5155},{"id":5155}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-19T14:43:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Calfo{{ FIELD }}Alexander Calfo has repeatedly won the most difficult and challenging trials involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals, airplane crashes, automotive products liability, class actions, toxic tort, insurance coverage, and commercial business disputes.  He has been awarded five of the Top 10 winning first-chair trial verdicts in California by The Daily Journal.  His verdicts have also been selected Top 5 nationally by LexisNexis, and Courtroom View Network recently named another high-profile national verdict as the “Number One Impressive Defense Victory in the United States.”  The Los Angeles Business Journal chose Alex as a 2022 Top 100 Lawyer for his legal skill, achievements, and exemplary leadership.  The award also recognized him as one of the first partners to join King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Los Angeles office and “has been instrumental in building the firm’s reputation as a west coast trial powerhouse.” \nAlex is inducted in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, the premier trial association in North America whose members are elected to the College for demonstrating the highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality. He is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only group of attorneys who have the required combination of skills, integrity, and trial experience.\nCourtroom View Network has awarded Alex its Number One all-time “must watch” defense verdict for the entire state of California.  Alex was also named “Lawyer of the Year” in the Los Angeles Business Journal for exceptional legal skill and achievement.  Benchmark Litigation recognizes him as a California Litigation Star and a Tier One National Product Liability Star.  Legal 500 U.S. ranks Alex “Among the Best in Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Actions in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation.” \nHe is a recipient of The Best Lawyers in America award and, in 2024, was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer. He was honored as a \"Top 25 Mass Tort and Product Liability lawyer in the United States\" by the National Trial Lawyers in 2026.  \nAlex is proudly named to the Board of Trustees of Creighton University - his Law School Alma Mater. \nAlex serves as a frequent author, speaker and presenter on a variety of trial and litigation topics. Partner Marquette University Marquette University Law School Creighton University Creighton University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado California American Bar Association Defense Research Institute American Board of Trial Advocates Los Angeles County Bar Association Center for International Studies","searchable_name":"Alexander Calfo","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":448835,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":676,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"susan-clare","email":"sclare@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":165}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Clare","nick_name":"Susan","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia","years_held":"2005"}],"first_name":"Susan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSusan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, \u003c/em\u003ea Rising Star for Transportation by \u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e, a Georgia Rising Star by \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMagazine\u003c/em\u003e, and was also named to\u003cem\u003e Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies,\u0026nbsp;consumer communications, and product recalls.\u0026nbsp;Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOnStar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKey member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading automobile manufacturers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipping and logistics companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal pharmaceutical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational flooring retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBeazer Homes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etop private university\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-growth specialty retailer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGM Canada\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan USA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in South Carolina federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWells v. Allergan USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAtlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eAnderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eEx Parte General Motors of Canada Limited,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSummary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGM Canada\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eKing v. GMC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGeneral Motors Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eFrye v. Smith\u003c/em\u003e, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed \u0026ldquo;a significant win to business\u0026rdquo; in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s comparative fault under Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2005 tort reform statute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Member of K\u0026S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year ","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star for Transportation","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":776}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:05.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:05.000Z","searchable_text":"Clare{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2019-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star for Transportation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2013–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data.{{ FIELD }}Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty.{{ FIELD }}Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.{{ FIELD }}Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma.{{ FIELD }}Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products.{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012).{{ FIELD }}Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011).{{ FIELD }}Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.{{ FIELD }}Susan Clare is a partner in our worldwide Trial and Global Disputes Practice and the former Chair of the Firm's Automotive and Transportation Litigation Team, twice named a Practice Group of the Year by Law 360. \nSusan represents clients in the automotive/transportation, life sciences, consumer products, and financial services industries in high-exposure class action, mass tort, and other complex litigation. Susan has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer in automotive and transportation litigation by The Legal 500, a Rising Star for Transportation by Law 360, a Georgia Rising Star by Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, and was also named to Benchmark Litigation's 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List. \nWith experience in all phases of complex litigation, Susan represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings in federal and state courts across the country.\nShe is skilled at handling the types of issues that frequently accompany the highest-exposure matters, such as cases involving recalled products, data breaches and consumer privacy, media attention, government investigations, allegations of consumer fraud, whistleblowers, jurisdictional challenges, insurance disputes, and extensive expert discovery.\nIn addition to litigation, Susan frequently advises clients on risk assessment and mitigation strategies, consumer communications, and product recalls. Susan has also achieved numerous appellate victories for her clients and regularly counsels clients on e-discovery issues that include litigation preparedness, discovery strategy in mass litigation, and defending against allegations of evidence spoliation.\nSusan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and has an active pro bono practice, including partnering with the Georgia Innocence Project to fight wrongful convictions. Susan M Clare Partner Named to 40 Under 40 Hot List - South Benchmark Litigation, 2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Transport: Rail and Road - Litigation and Regulation Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Named a Next Generation Partner in Product Liability, Mass Tort And Class Actions: Automotive/Transport - Defense Legal 500 US, 2019-2020 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2018 Automotive Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Member of K\u0026amp;S team named 2013-2018 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year  Law360 Named a Rising Star for Transportation Law360, 2018 Georgia Rising Star, Personal Injury Defense: Products Super Lawyers, 2013–2019 Order of the Coif  Georgia Institute of Technology  Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia International Academy of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy, 2014 Intern, Justice Hugh P. Thompson, Georgia Co-lead counsel for General Motors and OnStar in MDL proceeding involving more than 30 consumer class actions related to alleged data privacy claims related to connected vehicle data. Defending Capital One in MDL proceeding involving more than 60 consumer class actions related to data security incident announced in July of 2019. Key member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team representing Equifax, Inc. in more than 250 consumer and financial institution class actions in an MDL proceeding arising from the data breach announced by Equifax in September of 2017. Representing leading domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers in class actions, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases, including claims alleging manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects, breach of warranty, violations of consumer protection statutes, consumer fraud, and entitlement to punitive damages. Technical specialties include vehicle rollovers, alleged powertrain defects, advanced occupant restraint systems, infotainment systems, and vehicular fires. Representing leading automobile manufacturers as strategic counsel in connection with hundreds of consumer fraud and breach of warranty cases. Serving as co-national trial counsel for one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies in serious injury cases arising out of tractor trailer and package delivery motor vehicle accidents. Representing a global pharmaceutical company in medical device and biologic cases across the country involving allegations of personal injury, off-label promotion, and fraud. Representing a national flooring retailer in federal class action proceeding involving allegations of consumer fraud, false labeling, and breach of warranty. Representing Beazer Homes as national counsel in its Chinese drywall docket, including individual and putative class actions in state court and a federal MDL proceeding alleging product defects, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Representing a top private university in putative class action in federal MDL proceeding brought by former student athletes alleging injuries resulting from concussions and head trauma. Representing a high-growth specialty retailer in burn injury cases resulting from the use of recalled gel fuel and firepot products. Summary judgment for GM Canada on lack of personal jurisdiction grounds in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case. Hinrichs v. GM of Canada, Ltd., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala., June 24, 2016), cert denied, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. June 26, 2017). Dismissal on preemption grounds of medical device case brought against Allergan USA, Inc. in South Carolina federal court. Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 6:12-3509-TMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014). Summary judgment for Atlanta Gas Light Co. in multi-plaintiff burn injury case after excluding plaintiffs' standard of care expert on Daubert grounds. Anderson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 324 Ga. App. 801 (2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada in quadriplegia injury, automotive product liability case on a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex Parte General Motors of Canada Limited, 144 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2013). Summary judgment for GM Canada based on the expiration of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death, automotive product liability case filed in Alabama federal court. King v. GMC, No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2012). Dismissal of product liability claims brought against former officers and directors of General Motors Corporation by plaintiffs attempting to circumvent bankruptcy law. Frye v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 882 (Ala. 2011). Representing Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in the Georgia Supreme Court to secure a decision deemed “a significant win to business” in local press reports, in which the court held strict liability claims are subject to apportionment for a plaintiff’s comparative fault under Georgia’s 2005 tort reform statute.","searchable_name":"Susan M. Clare","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448881,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1047,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCharles Correll is a partner in the San Francisco and Houston offices with over twenty years of courtroom and arbitration experience. He is a member of our Contracts and Business Torts, Energy, Class Action, and International Arbitration practices. Charles \u0026nbsp;pursues and defends his clients\u0026rsquo; interests in complex commercial, mass tort and environmental litigation in both domestic and international disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an era of over-specialization, Charles has maintained a broad and diverse practice, bringing strategic judgment, tested courtroom skills, and dedication to his clients in \u0026nbsp;a wide variety of matters in federal and state courts, and before international and domestic arbitration panels. These include class actions; breaches of contract; construction; oil and gas exploration and royalty disputes; environmental issues (statutory and tort); business torts; personal injury matters; investment disputes; antitrust claims; patent infringement; trade secrets; and enforcement of international arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the energy industry, Charles represents large oil companies, independent exploration, and production companies and service providers in all types of disputes, including upstream, midstream and downstream matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Charles was an officer in the U.S. Army, where he served as a tank platoon leader for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Operation Desert Storm. He currently serves on the national board of directors for the West Point Association of Graduates.\u0026nbsp; Beat Navy!\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharles is ranked as \u0026ldquo;Tier 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e in energy litigation, and in product liability and mass tort defense. He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Texas Super Lawyer\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eTexas Monthly Magazine.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"charles-correll","email":"ccorrell@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy, Commercial, Class Action, Construction and Environmental Litigation in Federal and State Courts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003emajor oil company\u003c/strong\u003e as national litigation counsel in numerous MTBE cases in which private water companies, public water utilities and state agencies allege that MTBE is a defective and unreasonably dangerous product that has contaminated public drinking water supplies in California, New York and numerous other states.\u0026nbsp; He has tried one case to verdict thus far, obtaining a complete win at one station and defeating the large damages claims on the others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous cases brought by residents and the local municipal government relating to a refinery fire.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a putative royalty class action in California. The case involves all private leases held by the company in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEquifax \u003c/strong\u003ein a statewide unfair completion law (UCL) case in state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major non-U.S. auto manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in an antitrust class action in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court action to recover money arising out of a brownfield development project.\u0026nbsp; Successfully defended company against claims to pierce the corporate veil brought by a lender seeking to recover over $50 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a three-state class oil and gas royalty class action with claims over $2 billion.\u0026nbsp; Obtained a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous gas royalty disputes and gross production severance tax suits, including class actions, brought in Oklahoma by private royalty owners and the Oklahoma Tax Commission alleging that the company underpaid royalties and taxes due to affiliate sales and improper deductions of post-production costs. Obtained favorable settlements in all cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e concerning delay, disruption and change order claims arising out of an underwater demolition and construction project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a billion-dollar putative class action in federal court in which plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all persons damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Obtained a dismissal of all claims with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a $600 million preferential rights dispute. Arbitration panel awarded a take-nothing award in favor of the oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in an environmental lawsuit in federal court in which a state attorney general sought over four billion dollars in damages. Obtained summary judgment on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major offshore drilling company\u003c/strong\u003e in a class-action antitrust case in federal court in which the plaintiffs sought $15 billion in damages. While most defendants settled for millions of dollars, King\u0026nbsp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s client settled for a nominal amount after aggressively defending the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; class certification efforts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea wealthy investor\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous disputes related to investments in privately held companies in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of various contracts and investment agreements, and statutory violations. Ultimately negotiated a favorable cross-border settlement and restructuring agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea professional services corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute concerning the sale of an affiliated company. After a two-week trial in Houston, Texas, the company obtained a defense verdict on the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims and recovered damages and enforcement of the relevant contracts pursuant to the company\u0026rsquo;s counter-claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean inventor\u003c/strong\u003e in a two-week patent trial in federal court in Houston, Texas, obtaining a multi-million-dollar verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea Wall Street brokerage firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a securities fraud case in state court in Dallas, Texas. The case settled for a nominal amount after a Dallas jury in a court-ordered summary jury trial returned a defense verdict on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in companion trade secret/patent infringement cases in state courts in California and Texas in which the plaintiff sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages under a joint development agreement. The case settled for a nominal amount after extensive expert analysis disproved the worth of the technology at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternational Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained an award in excess of $350 million on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration against a national oil company involving claims of delay, disruption and additional costs incurred in the design and construction of large offshore oil and gas production platforms in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTried a case in federal court to enforce an annulled ICC award, obtaining a judgment enforcing the award and requiring the defendant to post significant security while the appeal was pending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean independent exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration against a drilling subcontractor. The matter settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean independent exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e in an International AAA arbitration in a dispute over a development agreement and associated confidentiality agreements. The dispute settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international construction company\u003c/strong\u003e on the enforcement and collection of an $80 million ICC Award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e on several matters governed by international arbitration provisions for construction and development of facilities in Africa that were resolved favorably without having to file for arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international exploration and development company\u003c/strong\u003e concerning an AMI dispute in Africa that settled favorably without having to file for arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":29}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Correll","nick_name":"Charles","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Charles","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-correll-22637a5/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":58,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCharles Correll is a partner in the San Francisco and Houston offices with over twenty years of courtroom and arbitration experience. He is a member of our Contracts and Business Torts, Energy, Class Action, and International Arbitration practices. Charles \u0026nbsp;pursues and defends his clients\u0026rsquo; interests in complex commercial, mass tort and environmental litigation in both domestic and international disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an era of over-specialization, Charles has maintained a broad and diverse practice, bringing strategic judgment, tested courtroom skills, and dedication to his clients in \u0026nbsp;a wide variety of matters in federal and state courts, and before international and domestic arbitration panels. These include class actions; breaches of contract; construction; oil and gas exploration and royalty disputes; environmental issues (statutory and tort); business torts; personal injury matters; investment disputes; antitrust claims; patent infringement; trade secrets; and enforcement of international arbitration awards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the energy industry, Charles represents large oil companies, independent exploration, and production companies and service providers in all types of disputes, including upstream, midstream and downstream matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Charles was an officer in the U.S. Army, where he served as a tank platoon leader for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Operation Desert Storm. He currently serves on the national board of directors for the West Point Association of Graduates.\u0026nbsp; Beat Navy!\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharles is ranked as \u0026ldquo;Tier 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e in energy litigation, and in product liability and mass tort defense. He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Texas Super Lawyer\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eTexas Monthly Magazine.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy, Commercial, Class Action, Construction and Environmental Litigation in Federal and State Courts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003emajor oil company\u003c/strong\u003e as national litigation counsel in numerous MTBE cases in which private water companies, public water utilities and state agencies allege that MTBE is a defective and unreasonably dangerous product that has contaminated public drinking water supplies in California, New York and numerous other states.\u0026nbsp; He has tried one case to verdict thus far, obtaining a complete win at one station and defeating the large damages claims on the others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous cases brought by residents and the local municipal government relating to a refinery fire.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a putative royalty class action in California. The case involves all private leases held by the company in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEquifax \u003c/strong\u003ein a statewide unfair completion law (UCL) case in state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major non-U.S. auto manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in an antitrust class action in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court action to recover money arising out of a brownfield development project.\u0026nbsp; Successfully defended company against claims to pierce the corporate veil brought by a lender seeking to recover over $50 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a three-state class oil and gas royalty class action with claims over $2 billion.\u0026nbsp; Obtained a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous gas royalty disputes and gross production severance tax suits, including class actions, brought in Oklahoma by private royalty owners and the Oklahoma Tax Commission alleging that the company underpaid royalties and taxes due to affiliate sales and improper deductions of post-production costs. Obtained favorable settlements in all cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e concerning delay, disruption and change order claims arising out of an underwater demolition and construction project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a billion-dollar putative class action in federal court in which plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all persons damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Obtained a dismissal of all claims with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in a $600 million preferential rights dispute. Arbitration panel awarded a take-nothing award in favor of the oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in an environmental lawsuit in federal court in which a state attorney general sought over four billion dollars in damages. Obtained summary judgment on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major offshore drilling company\u003c/strong\u003e in a class-action antitrust case in federal court in which the plaintiffs sought $15 billion in damages. While most defendants settled for millions of dollars, King\u0026nbsp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s client settled for a nominal amount after aggressively defending the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; class certification efforts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea wealthy investor\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous disputes related to investments in privately held companies in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of various contracts and investment agreements, and statutory violations. Ultimately negotiated a favorable cross-border settlement and restructuring agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea professional services corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute concerning the sale of an affiliated company. After a two-week trial in Houston, Texas, the company obtained a defense verdict on the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims and recovered damages and enforcement of the relevant contracts pursuant to the company\u0026rsquo;s counter-claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean inventor\u003c/strong\u003e in a two-week patent trial in federal court in Houston, Texas, obtaining a multi-million-dollar verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea Wall Street brokerage firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a securities fraud case in state court in Dallas, Texas. The case settled for a nominal amount after a Dallas jury in a court-ordered summary jury trial returned a defense verdict on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea major oil company\u003c/strong\u003e in companion trade secret/patent infringement cases in state courts in California and Texas in which the plaintiff sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages under a joint development agreement. The case settled for a nominal amount after extensive expert analysis disproved the worth of the technology at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternational Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained an award in excess of $350 million on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration against a national oil company involving claims of delay, disruption and additional costs incurred in the design and construction of large offshore oil and gas production platforms in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTried a case in federal court to enforce an annulled ICC award, obtaining a judgment enforcing the award and requiring the defendant to post significant security while the appeal was pending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean independent exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration against a drilling subcontractor. The matter settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ean independent exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e in an International AAA arbitration in a dispute over a development agreement and associated confidentiality agreements. The dispute settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international construction company\u003c/strong\u003e on the enforcement and collection of an $80 million ICC Award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e on several matters governed by international arbitration provisions for construction and development of facilities in Africa that were resolved favorably without having to file for arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong\u003ean international exploration and development company\u003c/strong\u003e concerning an AMI dispute in Africa that settled favorably without having to file for arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7976}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:13.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:13.000Z","searchable_text":"Correll{{ FIELD }}Energy, Commercial, Class Action, Construction and Environmental Litigation in Federal and State Courts{{ FIELD }}Representing a major oil company as national litigation counsel in numerous MTBE cases in which private water companies, public water utilities and state agencies allege that MTBE is a defective and unreasonably dangerous product that has contaminated public drinking water supplies in California, New York and numerous other states.  He has tried one case to verdict thus far, obtaining a complete win at one station and defeating the large damages claims on the others.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major oil company in numerous cases brought by residents and the local municipal government relating to a refinery fire.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major oil company in a putative royalty class action in California. The case involves all private leases held by the company in California.{{ FIELD }}Representing Equifax in a statewide unfair completion law (UCL) case in state court.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major non-U.S. auto manufacturer in an antitrust class action in federal court.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major pharmaceutical company in a state court action to recover money arising out of a brownfield development project.  Successfully defended company against claims to pierce the corporate veil brought by a lender seeking to recover over $50 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in a three-state class oil and gas royalty class action with claims over $2 billion.  Obtained a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in numerous gas royalty disputes and gross production severance tax suits, including class actions, brought in Oklahoma by private royalty owners and the Oklahoma Tax Commission alleging that the company underpaid royalties and taxes due to affiliate sales and improper deductions of post-production costs. Obtained favorable settlements in all cases.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international contractor concerning delay, disruption and change order claims arising out of an underwater demolition and construction project.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in a billion-dollar putative class action in federal court in which plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all persons damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Obtained a dismissal of all claims with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in a $600 million preferential rights dispute. Arbitration panel awarded a take-nothing award in favor of the oil company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in an environmental lawsuit in federal court in which a state attorney general sought over four billion dollars in damages. Obtained summary judgment on all claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major offshore drilling company in a class-action antitrust case in federal court in which the plaintiffs sought $15 billion in damages. While most defendants settled for millions of dollars, King  Spalding’s client settled for a nominal amount after aggressively defending the plaintiffs’ class certification efforts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a wealthy investor in numerous disputes related to investments in privately held companies in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of various contracts and investment agreements, and statutory violations. Ultimately negotiated a favorable cross-border settlement and restructuring agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a professional services corporation in a dispute concerning the sale of an affiliated company. After a two-week trial in Houston, Texas, the company obtained a defense verdict on the plaintiff’s claims and recovered damages and enforcement of the relevant contracts pursuant to the company’s counter-claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented an inventor in a two-week patent trial in federal court in Houston, Texas, obtaining a multi-million-dollar verdict.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Wall Street brokerage firm in a securities fraud case in state court in Dallas, Texas. The case settled for a nominal amount after a Dallas jury in a court-ordered summary jury trial returned a defense verdict on all claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil company in companion trade secret/patent infringement cases in state courts in California and Texas in which the plaintiff sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages under a joint development agreement. The case settled for a nominal amount after extensive expert analysis disproved the worth of the technology at issue.{{ FIELD }}International Arbitration{{ FIELD }}Obtained an award in excess of $350 million on behalf of an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against a national oil company involving claims of delay, disruption and additional costs incurred in the design and construction of large offshore oil and gas production platforms in Latin America.{{ FIELD }}Tried a case in federal court to enforce an annulled ICC award, obtaining a judgment enforcing the award and requiring the defendant to post significant security while the appeal was pending.{{ FIELD }}Represented an independent exploration company in an ICC arbitration against a drilling subcontractor. The matter settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented an independent exploration company in an International AAA arbitration in a dispute over a development agreement and associated confidentiality agreements. The dispute settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Advised an international construction company on the enforcement and collection of an $80 million ICC Award.{{ FIELD }}Advised an international exploration company on several matters governed by international arbitration provisions for construction and development of facilities in Africa that were resolved favorably without having to file for arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Advised an international exploration and development company concerning an AMI dispute in Africa that settled favorably without having to file for arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Charles Correll is a partner in the San Francisco and Houston offices with over twenty years of courtroom and arbitration experience. He is a member of our Contracts and Business Torts, Energy, Class Action, and International Arbitration practices. Charles  pursues and defends his clients’ interests in complex commercial, mass tort and environmental litigation in both domestic and international disputes.\nIn an era of over-specialization, Charles has maintained a broad and diverse practice, bringing strategic judgment, tested courtroom skills, and dedication to his clients in  a wide variety of matters in federal and state courts, and before international and domestic arbitration panels. These include class actions; breaches of contract; construction; oil and gas exploration and royalty disputes; environmental issues (statutory and tort); business torts; personal injury matters; investment disputes; antitrust claims; patent infringement; trade secrets; and enforcement of international arbitration awards.\nWith significant experience in the energy industry, Charles represents large oil companies, independent exploration, and production companies and service providers in all types of disputes, including upstream, midstream and downstream matters.\nPreviously, Charles was an officer in the U.S. Army, where he served as a tank platoon leader for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Operation Desert Storm. He currently serves on the national board of directors for the West Point Association of Graduates.  Beat Navy!\nCharles is ranked as “Tier 1” by Legal 500 in energy litigation, and in product liability and mass tort defense. He has also been named a “Texas Super Lawyer” by Texas Monthly Magazine. Charles C Correll Partner United States Military Academy  Yale University Yale Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas 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 California Oklahoma Texas Houston Bar Association Texas Bar Association California Bar Association Energy, Commercial, Class Action, Construction and Environmental Litigation in Federal and State Courts Representing a major oil company as national litigation counsel in numerous MTBE cases in which private water companies, public water utilities and state agencies allege that MTBE is a defective and unreasonably dangerous product that has contaminated public drinking water supplies in California, New York and numerous other states.  He has tried one case to verdict thus far, obtaining a complete win at one station and defeating the large damages claims on the others. Representing a major oil company in numerous cases brought by residents and the local municipal government relating to a refinery fire. Representing a major oil company in a putative royalty class action in California. The case involves all private leases held by the company in California. Representing Equifax in a statewide unfair completion law (UCL) case in state court. Representing a major non-U.S. auto manufacturer in an antitrust class action in federal court. Representing a major pharmaceutical company in a state court action to recover money arising out of a brownfield development project.  Successfully defended company against claims to pierce the corporate veil brought by a lender seeking to recover over $50 million. Represented a major oil company in a three-state class oil and gas royalty class action with claims over $2 billion.  Obtained a favorable settlement. Represented a major oil company in numerous gas royalty disputes and gross production severance tax suits, including class actions, brought in Oklahoma by private royalty owners and the Oklahoma Tax Commission alleging that the company underpaid royalties and taxes due to affiliate sales and improper deductions of post-production costs. Obtained favorable settlements in all cases. Represented an international contractor concerning delay, disruption and change order claims arising out of an underwater demolition and construction project. Represented a major oil company in a billion-dollar putative class action in federal court in which plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all persons damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Obtained a dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Represented a major oil company in a $600 million preferential rights dispute. Arbitration panel awarded a take-nothing award in favor of the oil company. Represented a major oil company in an environmental lawsuit in federal court in which a state attorney general sought over four billion dollars in damages. Obtained summary judgment on all claims. Represented a major offshore drilling company in a class-action antitrust case in federal court in which the plaintiffs sought $15 billion in damages. While most defendants settled for millions of dollars, King  Spalding’s client settled for a nominal amount after aggressively defending the plaintiffs’ class certification efforts. Represented a wealthy investor in numerous disputes related to investments in privately held companies in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of various contracts and investment agreements, and statutory violations. Ultimately negotiated a favorable cross-border settlement and restructuring agreement. Represented a professional services corporation in a dispute concerning the sale of an affiliated company. After a two-week trial in Houston, Texas, the company obtained a defense verdict on the plaintiff’s claims and recovered damages and enforcement of the relevant contracts pursuant to the company’s counter-claims. Represented an inventor in a two-week patent trial in federal court in Houston, Texas, obtaining a multi-million-dollar verdict. Represented a Wall Street brokerage firm in a securities fraud case in state court in Dallas, Texas. The case settled for a nominal amount after a Dallas jury in a court-ordered summary jury trial returned a defense verdict on all claims. Represented a major oil company in companion trade secret/patent infringement cases in state courts in California and Texas in which the plaintiff sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages under a joint development agreement. The case settled for a nominal amount after extensive expert analysis disproved the worth of the technology at issue. International Arbitration Obtained an award in excess of $350 million on behalf of an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against a national oil company involving claims of delay, disruption and additional costs incurred in the design and construction of large offshore oil and gas production platforms in Latin America. Tried a case in federal court to enforce an annulled ICC award, obtaining a judgment enforcing the award and requiring the defendant to post significant security while the appeal was pending. Represented an independent exploration company in an ICC arbitration against a drilling subcontractor. The matter settled on favorable terms. Represented an independent exploration company in an International AAA arbitration in a dispute over a development agreement and associated confidentiality agreements. The dispute settled on favorable terms. Advised an international construction company on the enforcement and collection of an $80 million ICC Award. Advised an international exploration company on several matters governed by international arbitration provisions for construction and development of facilities in Africa that were resolved favorably without having to file for arbitration. Advised an international exploration and development company concerning an AMI dispute in Africa that settled favorably without having to file for arbitration.","searchable_name":"Charles C. Correll, Jr.","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":448853,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":853,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTodd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.\u0026nbsp; His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition. \u0026nbsp;Mr. Davis\u0026rsquo; practice\u0026nbsp;involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500\u0026rsquo;s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"todd-davis","email":"tdavis@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrying three cases for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying the first \u0026ldquo;innovator liability\u0026rdquo; prescription drug case to go to trial (\u003cem\u003eDolin v. GSK,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2017\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEngle\u003c/em\u003e-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device and pharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the \u0026ldquo;Big Four\u0026rdquo; federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ere\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePrempro\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProds. Liab. Lit.\u003c/em\u003e, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea statewide claim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, \u0026sect; 17200\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailure-to-warn claims\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving a prescription medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eE.g., O\u0026rsquo;Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCandace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully excluding plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s experts\u0026rsquo; opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues in the breast implant litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllison v. McGhan Medical Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;filed in the \u0026ldquo;rocket-docket\u0026rdquo; of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending on appeal summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based upon the learned intermediary doctrine.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereh\u0026rsquo;g denied by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgment in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHoward v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.)\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fraudulent concealment.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCollins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff'd\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epersonal injury lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving prescription medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor responsibility in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred breast implant cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully arguing for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etransfer of a host of cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; home states under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-ranking company executives\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in depositions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s order.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":63}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Davis","nick_name":"Todd","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Todd","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTodd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.\u0026nbsp; His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition. \u0026nbsp;Mr. Davis\u0026rsquo; practice\u0026nbsp;involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500\u0026rsquo;s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrying three cases for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying the first \u0026ldquo;innovator liability\u0026rdquo; prescription drug case to go to trial (\u003cem\u003eDolin v. GSK,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2017\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEngle\u003c/em\u003e-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device and pharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the \u0026ldquo;Big Four\u0026rdquo; federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ere\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePrempro\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProds. Liab. Lit.\u003c/em\u003e, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea statewide claim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Paxil users under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, \u0026sect; 17200\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Paxil,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeating efforts to certify a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enationwide class\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailure-to-warn claims\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving a prescription medication.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eE.g., O\u0026rsquo;Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCandace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully excluding plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s experts\u0026rsquo; opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;grounds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues in the breast implant litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllison v. McGhan Medical Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;filed in the \u0026ldquo;rocket-docket\u0026rdquo; of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending on appeal summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;based upon the learned intermediary doctrine.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAllgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ereh\u0026rsquo;g denied by\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtaining summary judgment in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea product liability lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHoward v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.)\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;d\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fraudulent concealment.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCollins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eaff'd\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epersonal injury lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving prescription medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor responsibility in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred breast implant cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully arguing for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etransfer of a host of cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; home states under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-ranking company executives\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in depositions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s order.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":805}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:44.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Davis{{ FIELD }}Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.{{ FIELD }}Trying the first “innovator liability” prescription drug case to go to trial (Dolin v. GSK, 2017).{{ FIELD }}Trying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the Engle-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020).{{ FIELD }}Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).{{ FIELD }}Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).{{ FIELD }}Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).{{ FIELD }}Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).{{ FIELD }}Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications.{{ FIELD }}Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.){{ FIELD }}Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions.{{ FIELD }}Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.{{ FIELD }}Todd Davis is a partner with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. For the last twenty-eight years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to trying high-stakes products liability cases, including those involving medications, medical devices and consumer products.  His involvement includes cross-examining plaintiffs’ key causation and medical expert witnesses at trial and in deposition.  Mr. Davis’ practice involves representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.\nMr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500’s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category. Todd P Davis Partner Stetson University Stetson University College of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Florida Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association The Florida Bar Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages. Trying the first “innovator liability” prescription drug case to go to trial (Dolin v. GSK, 2017). Trying cases for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as part of the Engle-progeny litigation in Florida (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020). Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings. Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005). Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007). Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla). Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement. Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009). Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal. Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims. Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications. Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict. Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.) Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions. Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.","searchable_name":"Todd P. Davis","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":448815,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":542,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey Drake is a partner in our Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts Practice and a member of the firm's\u0026nbsp;Policy Committee.\u0026nbsp;Geoffrey is also Chair of our Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team, which \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized as one of the top five such practices in the country. Before that, Geoffrey led our Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Litigation Team. Geoffrey represents life sciences,\u0026nbsp;automotive and transportation, technology\u0026nbsp;and energy/mining\u0026nbsp;companies in high-profile product liability, toxic tort\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;mass tort litigation, for which he has extensive experience litigating all phases of individual, MDL and class action cases, as well as serving as coordinating and strategic counsel in connection with large dockets of cases at the federal and state levels.\u0026nbsp;Clients recently described Geoffrey to \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eas \"extraordinary,\" incredibly talented,\" a \"clear communicator,\" \"very bright,\" \"good on his feet,\" and \"a common-sense litigator.\" In particular, clients compliment Geoffrey's ability to bring \"strategic insight and creativity to the table\" while also doing \"an excellent job imposing order on chaos.\"[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Geoffrey represents clients in nationwide, high-exposure product liability, mass tort, class action, toxic tort and whistleblower litigation, along with internal and government investigations. He litigates all phases of cases in federal and state courts nationwide, including in the most challenging jurisdictions for corporate clients. From the start, Geoffrey handles each matter with a view toward trial, considering how to communicate effectively to a jury a host of complex scientific, technical and regulatory issues. Geoffrey also has significant experience with legal project management, having helped structure, lead\u0026nbsp;and manage several large, cross-practice, cross-office matters, including to design and implement sophisticated budgets and alternative billing arrangements and manage the organization, workflow\u0026nbsp;and staffing plans to deliver the client exceptional and efficient services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey chairs our nationally recognized Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team. And for five years before that, he chaired our leading Pharmaceutical \u0026amp; Medical Device Litigation Team. He is ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ein Product Liability\u0026nbsp; (Band Two: Georgia) and has been recommended by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas a Key Lawyer in consumer products litigation, automotive litigation\u0026nbsp;and pharmaceutical and medical device litigation for the past several years.\u0026nbsp;In 2025, \u003cem\u003eLawdragon \u003c/em\u003erecognized Geoffrey on its inaugural list of the 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers. Geoffrey co-authored the leading treatise, \u003cem\u003eDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy, 2nd Edition\u003c/em\u003e (Oxford Univ. Press). In 2016, \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e listed Geoffrey as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in product liability litigation, recognizing him as among top legal talent under the age of 40\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e He was named to the \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003e\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u0026rdquo; for five\u0026nbsp;consecutive years, was named by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas a \"Future Star\" in 2018, and was named in 2018 to the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003e\u0026ldquo;On the Rise\u0026rdquo; list of attorneys under the age of 40 who are expected to go far in the field. Geoffrey also served as a member of the inaugural Next Generation Advisory Board for Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey was elected to a 3-year term on\u0026nbsp;the firm's Policy Committee in December 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"geoffrey-drake","email":"gdrake@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 824 3277","matters":["\u003cp\u003eLead Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTikTok Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which individual plaintiffs allege personal injuries and school districts and other governmental entities allege economic damages arising from adolescent use of various online communications services, including in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eMDL pending in the Northern District of California and the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Cases\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;JCCP pending in Los Angeles County.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of personal injuries and psychiatric harms arising from addiction to playing video games. In 2024, Geoffrey successfully argued on behalf of more than a dozen game developers and platforms in opposition to a petition to consolidate then-pending lawsuits in a federal MDL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRenco Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDoe Run Resources\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in mass tort litigation in two consolidated proceedings in federal court in St. Louis concerning personal-injury allegations by several thousand Peruvians citizens allegedly harmed by exposure to lead and other contaminants from a smelter in the Andean Highlands of Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-Coordinating and Strategic Counsel to a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with thousands of California consumer fraud and breach of warranty lawsuits; previously co-led team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eanother U.S. automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in hundreds of consumer-fraud lawsuits in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViking Group, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewith respect to claims and lawsuits relating to property damage arising from alleged manufacturing or design defects in fire suppression equipment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge industrial real estate company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with hundreds of lawsuits in Georgia state courts alleging cancers and personal injuries, as well as property devaluation, from exposure to ethylene oxide from a lessee's medical-device-sterilization operation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as one of a core group of partners leading the national coordinating and trial counsel team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nationwide litigation concerning allegations of suicidality and birth defects from use of the company\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as part of the team serving as National Coordinating and Trial Counsel in nationwide product liability litigation relating to injuries allegedly caused by the company\u0026rsquo;s female pelvic mesh devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMerck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving allegations of injuries from use of the company\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medication, including in three bellwether trials in two different MDLs. In\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlynn v. Merck\u003c/em\u003e, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, after which the court granted judgment based on federal preemption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturer of FDA-cleared surgical gowns\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nationwide litigation concerning the design, labeling, advertising and manufacture of the devices, including: a federal class action trial; a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;suit brought under the Federal False Claims Act in which the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss; and a federal Lanham Act lawsuit concerning allegations of false marketing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-led several 360-degree risk assessments for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading pharmaceutical manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with the launch of new medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eemployers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple COVID-19-related wrongful death lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePurdue Pharma\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General seeking Medicaid-related costs and other damages allegedly caused by the company\u0026rsquo;s marketing and promotion of its prescription pain medication.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Healthcare Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case brought under the federal False Claims Act claiming improper billing of Medicare for unnecessary wastage of two medications used to treat dialysis patients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with government investigations and multi-jurisdictional civil litigation relating to a series of high-profile vehicle recalls.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eowner of petroleum pipeline terminals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal MDL proceedings in an action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General involving claims of groundwater contamination from MTBE-containing gasoline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLincoln Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other manufacturers in cases involving claims from exposure to manganese fumes from welding rods, and serving as national discovery counsel in the litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEutectic Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e, the successor of a former operator of a Superfund site, in litigation involving allegations of a variety of personal injuries from PCB exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillips Services Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action lawsuit involving nuisance allegations arising from the release of odors from a wastewater treatment facility.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3271}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Drake","nick_name":"Geoffrey","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Geoffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices","detail":"Legal 500, 2020-2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive","detail":"Legal 500, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Rail And Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Named to Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation","detail":"2023 -2025"},{"title":"Named to \"On the Rise\" list","detail":"Daily Report, 2018"},{"title":"Named to Product Liability Editorial Advisory Board","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018"},{"title":"Named to Under 40 Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2020"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star in Product Liability Litigation","detail":"Law360, 2016"},{"title":"Appointed to Next Generation Advisory Board","detail":"Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2016"},{"title":"Named a Georgia Super Lawyer - Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, 2013–2020"},{"title":"Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Trial Academy","detail":"2012"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"Vanderbilt University Law School, 2005"},{"title":"Best Oralist Award","detail":"Vanderbilt University Law School Intramural Moot Coot Competition, 2004"},{"title":"Executive Development Editor","detail":"Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2005"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-drake-11504574/","seodescription":"Geoffrey Drake is a lawyer of the Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey Drake is a partner in our Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts Practice and a member of the firm's\u0026nbsp;Policy Committee.\u0026nbsp;Geoffrey is also Chair of our Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team, which \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized as one of the top five such practices in the country. Before that, Geoffrey led our Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Litigation Team. Geoffrey represents life sciences,\u0026nbsp;automotive and transportation, technology\u0026nbsp;and energy/mining\u0026nbsp;companies in high-profile product liability, toxic tort\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;mass tort litigation, for which he has extensive experience litigating all phases of individual, MDL and class action cases, as well as serving as coordinating and strategic counsel in connection with large dockets of cases at the federal and state levels.\u0026nbsp;Clients recently described Geoffrey to \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eas \"extraordinary,\" incredibly talented,\" a \"clear communicator,\" \"very bright,\" \"good on his feet,\" and \"a common-sense litigator.\" In particular, clients compliment Geoffrey's ability to bring \"strategic insight and creativity to the table\" while also doing \"an excellent job imposing order on chaos.\"[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Geoffrey represents clients in nationwide, high-exposure product liability, mass tort, class action, toxic tort and whistleblower litigation, along with internal and government investigations. He litigates all phases of cases in federal and state courts nationwide, including in the most challenging jurisdictions for corporate clients. From the start, Geoffrey handles each matter with a view toward trial, considering how to communicate effectively to a jury a host of complex scientific, technical and regulatory issues. Geoffrey also has significant experience with legal project management, having helped structure, lead\u0026nbsp;and manage several large, cross-practice, cross-office matters, including to design and implement sophisticated budgets and alternative billing arrangements and manage the organization, workflow\u0026nbsp;and staffing plans to deliver the client exceptional and efficient services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey chairs our nationally recognized Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team. And for five years before that, he chaired our leading Pharmaceutical \u0026amp; Medical Device Litigation Team. He is ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ein Product Liability\u0026nbsp; (Band Two: Georgia) and has been recommended by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas a Key Lawyer in consumer products litigation, automotive litigation\u0026nbsp;and pharmaceutical and medical device litigation for the past several years.\u0026nbsp;In 2025, \u003cem\u003eLawdragon \u003c/em\u003erecognized Geoffrey on its inaugural list of the 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers. Geoffrey co-authored the leading treatise, \u003cem\u003eDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy, 2nd Edition\u003c/em\u003e (Oxford Univ. Press). In 2016, \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e listed Geoffrey as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in product liability litigation, recognizing him as among top legal talent under the age of 40\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e He was named to the \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003e\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\u0026rdquo; for five\u0026nbsp;consecutive years, was named by \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas a \"Future Star\" in 2018, and was named in 2018 to the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003e\u0026ldquo;On the Rise\u0026rdquo; list of attorneys under the age of 40 who are expected to go far in the field. Geoffrey also served as a member of the inaugural Next Generation Advisory Board for Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeoffrey was elected to a 3-year term on\u0026nbsp;the firm's Policy Committee in December 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eLead Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTikTok Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which individual plaintiffs allege personal injuries and school districts and other governmental entities allege economic damages arising from adolescent use of various online communications services, including in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eMDL pending in the Northern District of California and the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Cases\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;JCCP pending in Los Angeles County.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of personal injuries and psychiatric harms arising from addiction to playing video games. In 2024, Geoffrey successfully argued on behalf of more than a dozen game developers and platforms in opposition to a petition to consolidate then-pending lawsuits in a federal MDL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRenco Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDoe Run Resources\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in mass tort litigation in two consolidated proceedings in federal court in St. Louis concerning personal-injury allegations by several thousand Peruvians citizens allegedly harmed by exposure to lead and other contaminants from a smelter in the Andean Highlands of Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-Coordinating and Strategic Counsel to a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with thousands of California consumer fraud and breach of warranty lawsuits; previously co-led team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eanother U.S. automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in hundreds of consumer-fraud lawsuits in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViking Group, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewith respect to claims and lawsuits relating to property damage arising from alleged manufacturing or design defects in fire suppression equipment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge industrial real estate company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with hundreds of lawsuits in Georgia state courts alleging cancers and personal injuries, as well as property devaluation, from exposure to ethylene oxide from a lessee's medical-device-sterilization operation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as one of a core group of partners leading the national coordinating and trial counsel team representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nationwide litigation concerning allegations of suicidality and birth defects from use of the company\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as part of the team serving as National Coordinating and Trial Counsel in nationwide product liability litigation relating to injuries allegedly caused by the company\u0026rsquo;s female pelvic mesh devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMerck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving allegations of injuries from use of the company\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medication, including in three bellwether trials in two different MDLs. In\u0026nbsp;\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlynn v. Merck\u003c/em\u003e, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, after which the court granted judgment based on federal preemption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturer of FDA-cleared surgical gowns\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nationwide litigation concerning the design, labeling, advertising and manufacture of the devices, including: a federal class action trial; a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;suit brought under the Federal False Claims Act in which the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss; and a federal Lanham Act lawsuit concerning allegations of false marketing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-led several 360-degree risk assessments for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading pharmaceutical manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with the launch of new medications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eemployers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple COVID-19-related wrongful death lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePurdue Pharma\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General seeking Medicaid-related costs and other damages allegedly caused by the company\u0026rsquo;s marketing and promotion of its prescription pain medication.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Healthcare Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case brought under the federal False Claims Act claiming improper billing of Medicare for unnecessary wastage of two medications used to treat dialysis patients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with government investigations and multi-jurisdictional civil litigation relating to a series of high-profile vehicle recalls.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eowner of petroleum pipeline terminals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal MDL proceedings in an action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General involving claims of groundwater contamination from MTBE-containing gasoline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLincoln Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other manufacturers in cases involving claims from exposure to manganese fumes from welding rods, and serving as national discovery counsel in the litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEutectic Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e, the successor of a former operator of a Superfund site, in litigation involving allegations of a variety of personal injuries from PCB exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillips Services Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action lawsuit involving nuisance allegations arising from the release of odors from a wastewater treatment facility.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices","detail":"Legal 500, 2020-2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive","detail":"Legal 500, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Rail And Road - Litigation and Regulation","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Named to Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation","detail":"2023 -2025"},{"title":"Named to \"On the Rise\" list","detail":"Daily Report, 2018"},{"title":"Named to Product Liability Editorial Advisory Board","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018"},{"title":"Named to Under 40 Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2020"},{"title":"Named a Rising Star in Product Liability Litigation","detail":"Law360, 2016"},{"title":"Appointed to Next Generation Advisory Board","detail":"Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2016"},{"title":"Named a Georgia Super Lawyer - Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, 2013–2020"},{"title":"Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Trial Academy","detail":"2012"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"Vanderbilt University Law School, 2005"},{"title":"Best Oralist Award","detail":"Vanderbilt University Law School Intramural Moot Coot Competition, 2004"},{"title":"Executive Development Editor","detail":"Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2005"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11790}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:06:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:06:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Drake{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2020-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended/Key Lawyer in Rail And Road - Litigation and Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2023 -2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to \\\"On the Rise\\\" list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Product Liability Editorial Advisory Board\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Under 40 Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star in Product Liability Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Appointed to Next Generation Advisory Board\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Georgia Super Lawyer - Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, 2013–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Vanderbilt University Law School, 2005\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Oralist Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Vanderbilt University Law School Intramural Moot Coot Competition, 2004\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Executive Development Editor\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2005\"}{{ FIELD }}Lead Counsel to TikTok Inc. in nationwide litigation in which individual plaintiffs allege personal injuries and school districts and other governmental entities allege economic damages arising from adolescent use of various online communications services, including in the In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation MDL pending in the Northern District of California and the In re Social Media Cases JCCP pending in Los Angeles County.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of personal injuries and psychiatric harms arising from addiction to playing video games. In 2024, Geoffrey successfully argued on behalf of more than a dozen game developers and platforms in opposition to a petition to consolidate then-pending lawsuits in a federal MDL.{{ FIELD }}Representing Renco Group and Doe Run Resources in mass tort litigation in two consolidated proceedings in federal court in St. Louis concerning personal-injury allegations by several thousand Peruvians citizens allegedly harmed by exposure to lead and other contaminants from a smelter in the Andean Highlands of Peru.{{ FIELD }}Co-Coordinating and Strategic Counsel to a U.S. automobile manufacturer in connection with thousands of California consumer fraud and breach of warranty lawsuits; previously co-led team representing another U.S. automobile manufacturer in hundreds of consumer-fraud lawsuits in California.{{ FIELD }}National Counsel to Viking Group, Inc. with respect to claims and lawsuits relating to property damage arising from alleged manufacturing or design defects in fire suppression equipment.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large industrial real estate company in connection with hundreds of lawsuits in Georgia state courts alleging cancers and personal injuries, as well as property devaluation, from exposure to ethylene oxide from a lessee's medical-device-sterilization operation.{{ FIELD }}Serving as one of a core group of partners leading the national coordinating and trial counsel team representing GlaxoSmithKline in nationwide litigation concerning allegations of suicidality and birth defects from use of the company’s antidepressant.{{ FIELD }}Representing Coloplast as part of the team serving as National Coordinating and Trial Counsel in nationwide product liability litigation relating to injuries allegedly caused by the company’s female pelvic mesh devices.{{ FIELD }}Represented Merck in multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving allegations of injuries from use of the company’s osteoporosis medication, including in three bellwether trials in two different MDLs. In Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, after which the court granted judgment based on federal preemption.{{ FIELD }}Represented the manufacturer of FDA-cleared surgical gowns in nationwide litigation concerning the design, labeling, advertising and manufacture of the devices, including: a federal class action trial; a qui tam suit brought under the Federal False Claims Act in which the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss; and a federal Lanham Act lawsuit concerning allegations of false marketing.{{ FIELD }}Co-led several 360-degree risk assessments for a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the launch of new medications.{{ FIELD }}Representing healthcare companies and employers in multiple COVID-19-related wrongful death lawsuits.{{ FIELD }}Represented Purdue Pharma in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General seeking Medicaid-related costs and other damages allegedly caused by the company’s marketing and promotion of its prescription pain medication.{{ FIELD }}Represented DaVita Healthcare Partners in a qui tam case brought under the federal False Claims Act claiming improper billing of Medicare for unnecessary wastage of two medications used to treat dialysis patients.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading automobile manufacturer in connection with government investigations and multi-jurisdictional civil litigation relating to a series of high-profile vehicle recalls.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of petroleum pipeline terminals in federal MDL proceedings in an action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General involving claims of groundwater contamination from MTBE-containing gasoline.{{ FIELD }}Represented Lincoln Electric Company and other manufacturers in cases involving claims from exposure to manganese fumes from welding rods, and serving as national discovery counsel in the litigation for Eutectic Corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented Cooper Industries, the successor of a former operator of a Superfund site, in litigation involving allegations of a variety of personal injuries from PCB exposure.{{ FIELD }}\n\nRepresented Phillips Services Corp. in a class action lawsuit involving nuisance allegations arising from the release of odors from a wastewater treatment facility.\n \n\n\n\n {{ FIELD }}Geoffrey Drake is a partner in our Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts Practice and a member of the firm's Policy Committee. Geoffrey is also Chair of our Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team, which Legal 500 has recognized as one of the top five such practices in the country. Before that, Geoffrey led our Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Litigation Team. Geoffrey represents life sciences, automotive and transportation, technology and energy/mining companies in high-profile product liability, toxic tort and mass tort litigation, for which he has extensive experience litigating all phases of individual, MDL and class action cases, as well as serving as coordinating and strategic counsel in connection with large dockets of cases at the federal and state levels. Clients recently described Geoffrey to Chambers USA as \"extraordinary,\" incredibly talented,\" a \"clear communicator,\" \"very bright,\" \"good on his feet,\" and \"a common-sense litigator.\" In particular, clients compliment Geoffrey's ability to bring \"strategic insight and creativity to the table\" while also doing \"an excellent job imposing order on chaos.\"\nAn experienced litigator, Geoffrey represents clients in nationwide, high-exposure product liability, mass tort, class action, toxic tort and whistleblower litigation, along with internal and government investigations. He litigates all phases of cases in federal and state courts nationwide, including in the most challenging jurisdictions for corporate clients. From the start, Geoffrey handles each matter with a view toward trial, considering how to communicate effectively to a jury a host of complex scientific, technical and regulatory issues. Geoffrey also has significant experience with legal project management, having helped structure, lead and manage several large, cross-practice, cross-office matters, including to design and implement sophisticated budgets and alternative billing arrangements and manage the organization, workflow and staffing plans to deliver the client exceptional and efficient services.\nGeoffrey chairs our nationally recognized Consumer Products \u0026amp; Automotive Litigation Team. And for five years before that, he chaired our leading Pharmaceutical \u0026amp; Medical Device Litigation Team. He is ranked by Chambers USA in Product Liability  (Band Two: Georgia) and has been recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer in consumer products litigation, automotive litigation and pharmaceutical and medical device litigation for the past several years. In 2025, Lawdragon recognized Geoffrey on its inaugural list of the 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers. Geoffrey co-authored the leading treatise, Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy, 2nd Edition (Oxford Univ. Press). In 2016, Law360 listed Geoffrey as a “Rising Star” in product liability litigation, recognizing him as among top legal talent under the age of 40. He was named to the Benchmark Litigation \"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List” for five consecutive years, was named by Benchmark Litigation as a \"Future Star\" in 2018, and was named in 2018 to the Daily Report’s “On the Rise” list of attorneys under the age of 40 who are expected to go far in the field. Geoffrey also served as a member of the inaugural Next Generation Advisory Board for Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims.\nGeoffrey was elected to a 3-year term on the firm's Policy Committee in December 2024.\n Geoffrey Drake lawyer Partner Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products Legal 500, 2024 Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices Legal 500, 2020-2024 Recommended/Key Lawyer in Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive Legal 500, 2023-2024 Recommended/Key Lawyer in Rail And Road - Litigation and Regulation Legal 500, 2024 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers  Lawdragon, 2025 Named to Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation 2023 -2025 Named to \"On the Rise\" list Daily Report, 2018 Named to Product Liability Editorial Advisory Board Law360, 2018 Named Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2018 Named to Under 40 Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2020 Named a Rising Star in Product Liability Litigation Law360, 2016 Appointed to Next Generation Advisory Board Emory University's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2016 Named a Georgia Super Lawyer - Rising Star Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine, 2013–2020 Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Trial Academy 2012 Order of the Coif Vanderbilt University Law School, 2005 Best Oralist Award Vanderbilt University Law School Intramural Moot Coot Competition, 2004 Executive Development Editor Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2005 University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Lead Counsel to TikTok Inc. in nationwide litigation in which individual plaintiffs allege personal injuries and school districts and other governmental entities allege economic damages arising from adolescent use of various online communications services, including in the In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation MDL pending in the Northern District of California and the In re Social Media Cases JCCP pending in Los Angeles County. Lead counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of personal injuries and psychiatric harms arising from addiction to playing video games. In 2024, Geoffrey successfully argued on behalf of more than a dozen game developers and platforms in opposition to a petition to consolidate then-pending lawsuits in a federal MDL. Representing Renco Group and Doe Run Resources in mass tort litigation in two consolidated proceedings in federal court in St. Louis concerning personal-injury allegations by several thousand Peruvians citizens allegedly harmed by exposure to lead and other contaminants from a smelter in the Andean Highlands of Peru. Co-Coordinating and Strategic Counsel to a U.S. automobile manufacturer in connection with thousands of California consumer fraud and breach of warranty lawsuits; previously co-led team representing another U.S. automobile manufacturer in hundreds of consumer-fraud lawsuits in California. National Counsel to Viking Group, Inc. with respect to claims and lawsuits relating to property damage arising from alleged manufacturing or design defects in fire suppression equipment. Representing a large industrial real estate company in connection with hundreds of lawsuits in Georgia state courts alleging cancers and personal injuries, as well as property devaluation, from exposure to ethylene oxide from a lessee's medical-device-sterilization operation. Serving as one of a core group of partners leading the national coordinating and trial counsel team representing GlaxoSmithKline in nationwide litigation concerning allegations of suicidality and birth defects from use of the company’s antidepressant. Representing Coloplast as part of the team serving as National Coordinating and Trial Counsel in nationwide product liability litigation relating to injuries allegedly caused by the company’s female pelvic mesh devices. Represented Merck in multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving allegations of injuries from use of the company’s osteoporosis medication, including in three bellwether trials in two different MDLs. In Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, after which the court granted judgment based on federal preemption. Represented the manufacturer of FDA-cleared surgical gowns in nationwide litigation concerning the design, labeling, advertising and manufacture of the devices, including: a federal class action trial; a qui tam suit brought under the Federal False Claims Act in which the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss; and a federal Lanham Act lawsuit concerning allegations of false marketing. Co-led several 360-degree risk assessments for a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the launch of new medications. Representing healthcare companies and employers in multiple COVID-19-related wrongful death lawsuits. Represented Purdue Pharma in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General seeking Medicaid-related costs and other damages allegedly caused by the company’s marketing and promotion of its prescription pain medication. Represented DaVita Healthcare Partners in a qui tam case brought under the federal False Claims Act claiming improper billing of Medicare for unnecessary wastage of two medications used to treat dialysis patients. Represented a leading automobile manufacturer in connection with government investigations and multi-jurisdictional civil litigation relating to a series of high-profile vehicle recalls. Represented the owner of petroleum pipeline terminals in federal MDL proceedings in an action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General involving claims of groundwater contamination from MTBE-containing gasoline. Represented Lincoln Electric Company and other manufacturers in cases involving claims from exposure to manganese fumes from welding rods, and serving as national discovery counsel in the litigation for Eutectic Corporation. Represented Cooper Industries, the successor of a former operator of a Superfund site, in litigation involving allegations of a variety of personal injuries from PCB exposure. \n\nRepresented Phillips Services Corp. in a class action lawsuit involving nuisance allegations arising from the release of odors from a wastewater treatment facility.\n \n\n\n\n ","searchable_name":"Geoffrey M. Drake","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":448884,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1068,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"harold-franklin","email":"hfranklin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":0,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Franklin","nick_name":"Harold","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Harold","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11788}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:15.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Franklin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Legal Elite\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Trend, 2006\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Fulton Daily Report, 2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commitment to Equality Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Justice Benham Community Service Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Presidential Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a \\\"Rising Star\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Lawyer Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Men of Influence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business League, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.{{ FIELD }}Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.{{ FIELD }}Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.{{ FIELD }}Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.{{ FIELD }}Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.{{ FIELD }}Harold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm’s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold’s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.  His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world’s largest corporations in complex “bet-the-company” litigation and trials.  Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world’s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.\nHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the Daily Report’s “Litigation Department of the Year” award publication.\nHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.  More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world’s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\nHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation’s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.  While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\nA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia’s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\nWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm’s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\nHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\nIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.  Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court’s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\nHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln’s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\nHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.  Harold also has been named as a Georgia Super Lawyer (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, as a Legal Elite by Georgia Trend Magazine, recognized by the Daily Report in 2007 as 1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40, and in 2016 by the Daily Report as a Georgia Attorney of the Year Finalist and he has been recognized by Legal 500 USA (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.  In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 – present) by Best Lawyers in America as a leading practitioner in his field.  In 2020, Harold was honored by the Daily Report with its Professional Excellence Award and was also honored as a Georgia Trailblazer. Partner Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present Benchmark Recognized for his national profile as a litigator Legal 500 Georgia Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, 2008-Present Recognized as Legal Elite Georgia Trend, 2006 2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide) Daily Report Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story  Fulton Daily Report, 2007 Commitment to Equality Award State Bar of Georgia, 2012 Justice Benham Community Service Award State Bar of Georgia, 2016 Presidential Award National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012 Ranked as a \"Rising Star\" Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007 Outstanding Lawyer Award  Gate City Bar Association, 2012 Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016 Men of Influence Award Atlanta Business League, 2015 Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp Gate City Bar Association, 2009 Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment. Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments. Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation. Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure. Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions. Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues. Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America. Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement. Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation. Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation. Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.","searchable_name":"Harold E. Franklin, Jr.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448833,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":703,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"robert-friedman","email":"rfriedman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friedman","nick_name":"Robert","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Robert","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertbfriedman/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13202}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:04.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:04.000Z","searchable_text":"Friedman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Product Liability 360, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Georgia \\\"Rising Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2010–2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company.{{ FIELD }}Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Rob Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.  His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries. \nRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\nRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County—without a single adverse verdict.\nHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco’s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\nRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm’s eight-time Law360 “Practice Group of the Year” Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\n  Partner Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide  Product Liability 360, 2011 Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\"  Law 360, 2010–2013 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgia State Bar of Georgia Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company. Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.","searchable_name":"Robert B. Friedman","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":443282,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5125,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarter George focuses his practice on\u0026nbsp;representing Fortune 100 and other entities\u0026nbsp;in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive,\u0026nbsp;and other product liability and tort cases.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and\u0026nbsp;he frequently\u0026nbsp;secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Carter has\u0026nbsp;extensive deposition,\u0026nbsp;motion practice, alternative dispute resolution\u0026nbsp;and case management\u0026nbsp;experience, and he regularly\u0026nbsp;prepares company representatives for deposition.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to\u0026nbsp;summer associates,\u0026nbsp;and previously served on the Firmwide\u0026nbsp;Associates Committee.\u0026nbsp; Carter is a member of the Law Council\u0026nbsp;for Washington and Lee University School of Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation\u0026nbsp;and white collar matters involving\u0026nbsp;cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger\u0026nbsp;in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"carter-george","email":"cgeorge@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epop culture collectibles company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained time served sentence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epro bono client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in supervised release revocation proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal industrial entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Viking Group, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecomputer security researcher\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in criminal matter involving malware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edigital agency\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInternet-based television provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pioneering\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ee-cigarette company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3307}]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"George","nick_name":"Carter","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Honorable Robert Bruce King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","years_held":"1/13-5/13"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Irene C. Berger, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia","years_held":"9/13-9/15"}],"first_name":"Carter","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2484,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2026"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Carter L. George is a partner in our Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarter George focuses his practice on\u0026nbsp;representing Fortune 100 and other entities\u0026nbsp;in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive,\u0026nbsp;and other product liability and tort cases.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and\u0026nbsp;he frequently\u0026nbsp;secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Carter has\u0026nbsp;extensive deposition,\u0026nbsp;motion practice, alternative dispute resolution\u0026nbsp;and case management\u0026nbsp;experience, and he regularly\u0026nbsp;prepares company representatives for deposition.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to\u0026nbsp;summer associates,\u0026nbsp;and previously served on the Firmwide\u0026nbsp;Associates Committee.\u0026nbsp; Carter is a member of the Law Council\u0026nbsp;for Washington and Lee University School of Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation\u0026nbsp;and white collar matters involving\u0026nbsp;cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger\u0026nbsp;in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epop culture collectibles company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained time served sentence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epro bono client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in supervised release revocation proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal industrial entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Viking Group, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecomputer security researcher\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in criminal matter involving malware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edigital agency\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInternet-based television provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pioneering\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ee-cigarette company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5762},{"id":5762}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-26T18:35:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-26T18:35:48.000Z","searchable_text":"George{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of forum non conveniens motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented pop culture collectibles company in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.{{ FIELD }}Obtained time served sentence for pro bono client in supervised release revocation proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Represented General Motors in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented global industrial entity in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented The Viking Group, Inc. in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading computer security researcher in criminal matter involving malware.{{ FIELD }}Represented global digital agency in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.{{ FIELD }}Represented Internet-based television provider in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented pioneering e-cigarette company in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.{{ FIELD }}Carter George focuses his practice on representing Fortune 100 and other entities in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive, and other product liability and tort cases.  He has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and he frequently secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.  Carter has extensive deposition, motion practice, alternative dispute resolution and case management experience, and he regularly prepares company representatives for deposition.  \nCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to summer associates, and previously served on the Firmwide Associates Committee.  Carter is a member of the Law Council for Washington and Lee University School of Law.  \nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation and white collar matters involving cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.  Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.   Carter George lawyer Partner Rising Star Super Lawyers, 2024 Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026 Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation  Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026 Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Best Lawyers in America, 2026 University of Mississippi University of Mississippi School of Law Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States 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 California New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California Intern, Honorable Robert Bruce King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Law Clerk, Honorable Irene C. Berger, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of forum non conveniens motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial. Represented pop culture collectibles company in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad. Obtained time served sentence for pro bono client in supervised release revocation proceedings. Represented General Motors in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms. Represented global industrial entity in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs. Represented The Viking Group, Inc. in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms. Represented leading computer security researcher in criminal matter involving malware. Represented global digital agency in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution. Represented Internet-based television provider in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms. Represented pioneering e-cigarette company in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.","searchable_name":"Carter L. George","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}],"extra_filter_label":"MDL and Coordinating Counsel Leadership"}}