We represent clients in court, arbitration, mediation and before administrative agencies in a full range of corporate, partnership and commercial disputes. With more than 90 litigators, we serve clients locally, regionally and nationally.
Our attorneys have tried hundreds of complex cases to verdict in state and federal courts across the country, as well as appeared before intermediate appellate courts, state courts of last resort, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Our trial experience shapes how we approach each matter: evaluating cases early, building litigation strategies designed to withstand scrutiny from a judge or jury, and preparing each case as though it will be tried. This preparation is often what produces the strongest settlement leverage.
Our experience spans virtually every forum in which business disputes are resolved, including federal district and appellate courts nationwide, the Delaware Court of Chancery, FINRA and AAA arbitration panels and the International Chamber of Commerce.
Representative areas of experience include:
Contract, Uniform Commercial Code, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims;
Shareholder, member and partnership disputes, including corporate control contests in the Delaware Court of Chancery;
Trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and disputes involving patents, trademarks and copyrights;
Defense of investment advisers, mutual funds, broker-dealers and other financial services businesses in large-scale, complex litigation, including class and derivative actions;
Representation of conventional and alternative lenders in loan agreements and related foreclosure and workout litigation;
Restrictive covenant, non-compete and trade-secret disputes arising out of employment relationships;
Defense of whistleblower and qui tam claims; and
Appellate advocacy before state and federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court.
We take the time to understand our clients' businesses, with practical, cost-effective strategies for high-stakes disputes. It's an approach that has served our clients well across decades of litigation in courts and arbitral forums.
Defended a former insurance company CEO against breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims in New York state court.
Represented an executive in arbitration over an alleged for-cause termination under an employment agreement.
Defended a law firm partner in a suit over a breach of a lease guarantee in New York state court.
Defended a foreign company against misappropriation of trade secrets claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Represented a national commercial builder in a multimillion-dollar breach-of-contract and tort suit; favorable settlement achieved after targeted motion practice.
Represented a national energy contractor in ongoing civil-rights and contract litigation.
Obtained a trial victory for an LLC member in a contribution action against a co-member in Virginia circuit court.
Successfully obtained a motion to strike, resulting in dismissal, in a bench trial over life-estate timber rights.
Provided ongoing outside general counsel advice to a large New York services company.
Provides ongoing outside general counsel services to numerous small- to middle-market companies, spotting issues, coordinating specialized counsel, and serving as a single point of contact across litigation, transactions, and regulatory matters.
Shareholder, Partnership & Corporate Control Disputes
Successfully prosecuted a shareholder oppression and fiduciary duty dispute in a multi-location restaurant venture, obtaining a favorable verdict for a minority owner in Maryland circuit court.
Active defense of a mining exploration company and its directors in consolidated Delaware Court of Chancery stockholder litigation alleging breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure violations.
Represented numerous corporate clients in shareholder litigation against former LLC members, employees, and vendors.
Represented a Fortune 500 energy company and its board in shareholder class actions, in state and federal court, arising from a $13 billion merger with another Fortune 500 energy company.
Represented a Fortune 100 corporation in shareholder class actions challenging a technology-company acquisition; dismissed on the pleadings.
Represented a REIT in a class action by a preferred shareholder alleging breach of contract and fiduciary duty in a merger with another REIT.
Represented a special litigation committee of a Fortune 100 mortgage corporation's board in evaluating derivative claims tied to a $5 billion restatement of earnings.
Negotiated a walk-away settlement of shareholder derivative litigation against a food distribution corporation and its board.
Served as counsel to a litigation trust pursuing claims exceeding $1.8 billion against a former officer and directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other corporate governance violations.
Obtained reversal on appeal to the Fourth Circuit of a discovery order compelling a tire manufacturer to produce trade secrets in a products liability action.
Won reversal on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia of a $16 million jury verdict against a nuclear manufacturer on breach-of-license and trade-secret-misappropriation claims.
Defended a head of a trading group against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violation of a non-solicitation agreement before FINRA.
Advises employers and employees on employment contracts, non-competition and trade-secret agreements, terminations, and equity plans.
Represents employers and employees in restrictive-covenant, trade-secret, and related employment litigation, and conducts internal workplace investigations.
Served as co-lead counsel securing a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims in the Merck & Co., Inc. securities, derivative, and ERISA class action litigation, which settled for approximately $1.06 billion.
Served as co-lead counsel achieving a $46 million recovery for common stock purchasers in a securities class action against a major regional bank; served as lead counsel achieving a $30 million recovery in securities litigation against a media and lifestyle company.
Represented a semiconductor company and its officers in a putative securities class action alleging nondisclosure of export-restricted revenue; motion to dismiss granted in full.
Represented a $14 billion investment company, its adviser, and officers in an SEC investigation regarding fund marketing; matter settled.
Represented an accounting firm in SEC and DOJ inquiries regarding a Russian oligarch's financial activities, and separately represented corporations in SEC/DOJ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations.
Served as first chair in a FINRA arbitration securing an award of nearly $1.5 million plus fees, costs, and full expungement of a Form U-5 — reported as the highest FINRA arbitration award of the year in which it was obtained.
Served as co-counsel to respondents in a FINRA arbitration resulting in complete dismissal of claims exceeding $35 million, and as co-counsel to a claimant in ICC arbitration obtaining a $4.2 million award.
Represented investment advisers, mutual funds, and broker-dealers in FINRA, SEC, and AAA proceedings, including trade-execution, compensation, and fund-marketing disputes, and Form U-4/U-5 disclosure and expungement matters.
Represented Lloyd's underwriters against a multi-million dollar fidelity bond claim in New York state court, and defended an accountant against fraud claims arising from a $400 million estate.
Represented banks, mortgage lenders, automobile manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and healthcare companies in complex commercial litigation and government enforcement matters, including matters litigated through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Business Torts, RICO & Related Litigation
Represented investors in renewable energy companies in the successful defense of RICO and fraud claims exceeding $100 million in the Southern District of New York.
Represented a large-scale travel company and its owners in the successful defense of RICO and fraud claims brought by a former owner in the Eastern District of California.
Successfully obtained a Ninth Circuit affirmance defeating a mass-arbitration demand against a mobile-game developer in a consumer class dispute.
Successfully obtained a trial verdict for investors against a REIT acquiring a management company and multiple apartment developments.
Successfully obtained a trial verdict in a national dispute among major shopping-center developers over the legality of a proposed bond issuance.
Lead trial counsel successfully defending a chemical manufacturer against conspiracy and related claims exceeding $10 million.
Represented a Fortune 200 consumer electronics company in a securities fraud class action alleging accounting improprieties; case dismissed with prejudice.
Lender, Creditor & Bankruptcy-Related Business Litigation
Represented an internationally-renowned healthcare system in resolving disputes with a prominent insurer over nonpayment and underpayment of emergency-department claims.
Represented health care providers in defense of claims by major insurers seeking recovery of more than $15 million in alleged reimbursement overpayments.
Secured a $14.7 million collective settlement of False Claims Act qui tam actions alleging inflated hospital billing.
Served as special litigation counsel to bankruptcy trustees and SEC-appointed receivers in recovering tens of millions of dollars through avoidance actions, and in a $10 million recovery on accounting malpractice claims arising from public bond offerings for senior living facilities.
Represented a chapter 11 trustee's complaint against one of the nation's largest healthcare claims administrators for breach of fiduciary duty related to a debtor's self-funded healthcare plan.
Represented a judgment creditor in successfully petitioning a Maryland court for appointment of a receiver over an insolvent real estate developer's operations and assets.
Represented lender-side and freight-carrier defendants in litigation brought by chapter 11 trustees to recover fraudulent and preferential transfers, including in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme.
Litigated successfully on behalf of numerous banks in lender-liability, defaulted-borrower, Fair Debt Collection Reporting Act, and Uniform Commercial Code disputes, and in defense of state banking-commission regulatory actions.
Provided litigation support to private equity lenders, mezzanine lenders, and other specialty finance companies.
Appellate Business Litigation
Represented parties and amici in more than a dozen appeals before the Supreme Court of the United States and in numerous civil appeals before the Fourth Circuit, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Obtained reversal on appeal to the Fourth Circuit of a discovery order compelling production of trade secrets in a products liability action.
Obtained reversal on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia of a $16 million jury verdict and judgment in a breach-of-license and trade-secret case.
Successfully defended, on appeal to the Second Circuit, a bankruptcy court order approving a $2.4 million lease-rejection damages claim under the Bankruptcy Code.
Persuaded a Maryland intermediate appellate court to affirm dismissal, on res judicata grounds, of claims seeking more than $20 million against a Whiteford client.
Obtained an affirmance from the Fourth Circuit of a multi-million-dollar judgment for a chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee against a recipient of debtor assets.
New York City is on the verge of altering the legal landscape concerning unfair, deceptive, abuse act and protection (proverbially known as UDAAP) claims;1 all to the benefit of consumers and businesses abiding by the law, and a warning to businesses (think bank accounts, credit cards, cryptocurrency, used motor vehicles, solar energy systems, certain app/web-based services etc.), based on a certain number of employees and gross revenue, skirting the law.
A force majeure notice arrives from your counterparty citing the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Iranian strikes or related government action. The notice claims performance is impossible and seeks to suspend or terminate obligations. This wave of notices was triggered in earnest by QatarEnergy’s recent declaration of force majeure on multiple long-term LNG supply contracts — a direct consequence of production disruptions and the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the Iran War.
Your first instinct may be to accept it. Resist that instinct. A force majeure notice is an assertion, not a legal determination. Whether it succeeds depends on the contract language, governing law and the invoking party’s compliance with every contractual and legal requirement. Receiving parties who respond strategically often preserve — or even strengthen — their position.
This alert builds on our earlier guidance on potential geopolitical disruptions amid the Iran War and implications for force majeure and performance obligations in contracts, which focused on proactive contract review before a force majeure notice arrives. You can read the prior alert here.
The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs in a 6-3 decision.
The Supreme Court did not address how tariffs will be refunded to importers. Resolution of that process will now be in the hands of the lower courts.
In a significant ruling on executive power, the Supreme Court has held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. This decision strikes down tariffs that President Trump imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico, China and other trading partners following declarations of national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits. Critically, the Court did not address how tariffs will be refunded to affected importers.
A coalition of ten Republican state attorneys general recently sent letters to companies participating in plastics-related section 501(c)(3) and section 501(c)(6) organizations, warning that their participation may violate federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. This development is part of a broader trend of regulatory agencies and state officials using antitrust scrutiny to target nonprofits and associations for what some view as political reasons. Nonprofits, trade associations and their members should carefully review their involvement in collective industry initiatives and consider seeking legal guidance to navigate this evolving regulatory climate.
The cryptocurrency enforcement landscape is undergoing a fundamental realignment. While Federal agencies that historically dominated digital asset oversight have shifted enforcement priorities away from licensing and registration violations toward fraud-based offenses, state regulators are aggressively enforcing cryptocurrency licensing requirements. Recent enforcement actions and proposed legislation signal escalating civil penalties, criminal prosecutions in some jurisdictions and retroactive prosecution of historical conduct.
In an era of heightened regulatory scrutiny and unforgiving stakeholder expectations, internal investigations conducted on behalf of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations focused on employee embezzlement and financial fraud require a disciplined, defensible approach from the very first moment an irregularity is discovered.
The next 12 months will separate leaders from laggards in U.S. digital finance. Congress’s passage of the GENIUS Act and rapid advancement of the CLARITY Act signal a turning point for stablecoin issuers, DeFi platforms, exchanges, and digital asset service providers. As federal agencies move quickly to draft implementing rules, businesses face pressing calls to prepare for “regulation-by-rulebook.”
On August 5, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed the finality of court orders and the limits of its appellate jurisdiction. While the decision was made in the context of a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”) dispute, it has broader application, especially to those cases in which attorney fees are sought.
On July 22, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals issued a published order in Sisco v. Holtzman, Rec. No. 024025, clarifying the rules for assignments of error in appellate proceedings. Assignments matter. The Court of Appeals cannot reverse rulings that are not assigned as error. See Rule 5A:20(c)(1) (“Only assignments of error listed . . . will be noticed by this Court.”).
The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) set aside an Emergency Cease Order issued by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) against Billionico Academy, Auratus, and related respondents in Texas State Securities Board v. Billionico Academy et al. (SOAH Docket No. 312-25-18829). The decision, based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, underscores robust protections for nonresident entities and individuals operating in the cryptocurrency and global business sectors.
The U.S. crypto landscape is transforming, with new regulations poised to redefine how digital asset businesses operate. We previously explored stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act (read more here), which recently passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68-30. Now, we are focusing on the Crypto Market Structure Bill—known as the CLARITY Act—and the SEC’s proposed “Innovation Exemption” for DeFi, which together offer a roadmap for navigating the broader crypto ecosystem.
The Department of Justice’s Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime memorandum released on May 12, 2025, signals a shift in DOJ corporate criminal enforcement. The memorandum signals a shift from past DOJ directives and focus, recognizing that ”not all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution,” that “prosecution of individuals, as well as civil and administrative remedies directed at corporations, are often appropriate to address low-level corporate misconduct and vindicate U.S. interests,” and that DOJ “must strike an appropriate balance between the need to effectively identify, investigate, and prosecute corporate and individuals’ criminal wrongdoing while minimizing unnecessary burdens on American enterprise.”
In April 2025, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a landmark bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty to regulate the $180 billion stablecoin market. With bipartisan support and a full Senate vote expected by Q3 2025, the Act signals the end of regulatory ambiguity for digital assets like USDC, Tether, and Binance USD. Coupled with broader cryptocurrency market reforms under discussion, these changes are reshaping the landscape for issuers, DeFi platforms, and investors.
In recent media appearances, New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office will “significantly expand” the use of the Martin Act—New York General Business Law article 23-a—to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute insider-trading activity occurring wholly or partially within the State. Enacted in 1921, the Martin Act confers uniquely broad civil and criminal enforcement powers to the Attorney General, permitting the State to pursue securities fraud cases without establishing scienter, reliance or damages and to subpoena documents and testimony even in the absence of a pending action. Willful violations of the Act constitute a class E felony punishable by up to four years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine; each fraudulent act may be charged separately, and the Attorney General may also seek injunctive relief, disgorgement and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, together with pre-judgment interest and, in appropriate cases, a bar from serving as an officer or director of a public company.
On March 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) announced that it will not impose penalties, fines, or pursue enforcement actions against U.S. companies, citizens, or their beneficial owners for failing to file beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports, pursuant to the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements final rule (31 C.F.R. 1010.380) (the “Reporting Rule”), the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) (31 U.S.C. § 5336), even after any forthcoming deadline extensions or changes to the Reporting Rule. Treasury’s announcement follows earlier guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) (the Treasury bureau responsible for enforcing the CTA)—which suspended enforcement of the March 21, 2025, filing deadline.
On February 17, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) previously issued in Smith v. US Dep’t of the Treasury, clearing the way for the law’s implementation. This marks a significant development following the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 23, 2025, order in McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., which lifted a separate nationwide injunction issued by another Texas federal district court. However, due to delays in the Justice Department’s motion in Smith, the CTA’s implementation remained blocked nationwide until now.
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced several amendments to its Rules, which govern proceedings in Virginia court. Parties to civil cases should pay careful attention to two of those revisions, which will become effective on March 17, 2025.
On December 23, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of a district court’s order and nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its corresponding Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Rule.
Following a Texas federal district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction temporarily halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), the U.S. government has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court’s findings (found here). In response to both the national injunction and the appeal, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), the agency responsible for enforcing the CTA, issued guidance (found here) clarifying that reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports and will not face liability for noncompliance “while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.”
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Merrick Garland (Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-478), issued a memorandum opinion and order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its implementing regulations and staying the compliance deadline for reporting companies pending further order of the court.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) have recently announced two enforcement actions that demonstrate the U.S. government's aggressive and expansive application of U.S. law to foreign conduct with minimal U.S. nexus. These actions underscore the need for foreign companies and individuals to be aware of and comply with U.S. legal requirements, especially in the areas of anti-corruption and sanctions, and to implement effective compliance programs and controls to mitigate the risk of U.S. enforcement. Our firm has extensive experience and expertise in advising and representing clients on these complex and evolving issues, and we are ready to assist you in navigating the challenges presented by the U.S. regulatory and enforcement landscape.
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets control (OFAC) issued a final rule amending specific reporting and procedural regulations effective November 7, 2024. OFAC published the interim final rule on May 10, 2024, seeking comments by June 10, 2024. The final rule’s enactment is noteworthy because OFAC seriously considered public comments concerning reporting requirements for unblocked or transferred property. The final rule adds three exceptions to the reporting of unblocked or transferred property based on the public comments received after publication of the interim final rule.
For companies whose operations are subject to strict federal regulations – and particularly those that are facing or may be facing enforcement actions – take note. The U.S. Supreme Court may have just leveled the playing field. On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing legal precedent that instructed courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer. Instead, federal laws will be interpreted by the courts. Federal agencies will need to prove their cases, including enforcement actions where an arguably ambiguous statute is at issue. This is good news for businesses in the U.S.
On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in National Small Business United et al. v. Janet Yellen et. al., Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB, held the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) to be unconstitutional. In this surprising decision, U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke ruled “The CTA is unconstitutional because it cannot be justified as exercise of Congress’ enumerated powers.”
On December 22, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”). FEPA is aimed at the “demand” side of foreign corruption and bribery, making it unlawful for any foreign official to demand a bribe from a U.S. issuer or domestic concern or to make such a demand within the United States. FEPA is intended to serve as a complement to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which for decades has made it unlawful for a U.S. issuer to offer a bribe to a foreign official in order to obtain an improper business advantage. While the FCPA already addressed the payment of bribes to foreign officials, FEPA now criminalizes the request from foreign officials as well.
Non-compete clauses impact approximately one in five American employees or 30 million people. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently proposed a ban on non-compete clauses in employment agreements. On January 11, 2023, Whiteford published an Alert on this proposal, but here’s an update about what you need to know regarding the ban and reports of recent FTC action to enforce these restrictions.
Companies are now subject to jurisdiction in places that do not have a significant relationship to the dispute.
The Century-old Supreme Court case, Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining, established the “consent in registration” principle that states can exercise jurisdiction over corporations not headquartered or incorporated in the state as long as they register to do business there. On June 27, 2023, in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, the Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania state trial court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-Pennsylvania company in a suit arising out of non-Pennsylvania conduct due to this consent. Companies registered to do business in a state can now be sued in that state even when the state has little or no connection to the case.
On January 9, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal claiming that Montgomery County illegally enforced a land use regulation that prevented a Christian group from constructing a 2000-seat religious facility in Burtonsville, Maryland. The case, Canaan Christian Church, et al. v. Montgomery County, Md, et al., was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in November 2016 by Canaan Christian Church and a group of four property owners who complained that the County refused to extend public sewer and water service to their properties, thus imposing an improper substantial burden on religious exercise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (known as “RLUIPA”).
In the absence of a statute or court Order, parties to litigation usually pay their own attorneys’ fees and costs. This is the “American Rule.” However, in a recent decision which has shaken public entities throughout the state, a Delaware court has concluded that a public entity may be required to bear its opponent’s fees and costs if the civic benefits of public interest litigation are sufficiently laudable. Since many lawsuits against governmental entities may be considered “public interest litigation”, this decision warrants attention (and concern) from all Delaware municipalities and counties.
Marla Diaz was quoted in length in WTOP’s article, “Judge Delays Ruling on Landmark Express Lanes Case.” The Judge's decision could have a significant impact on users of Virginia's Express Lanes. Marla argues the fines charged to her client are excessive and violate the 8th Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, a full-service law firm with offices across the East Coast, today announced that six partners from Chambers-rated Lazare Potter Glazer & Moyle LLP have joined Whiteford’s New York office.
Whiteford's appellate team, retained after trial, raised a new defense that led the Court of Appeals of Virginia to reverse $1.5 million in fraud liability.
Whiteford has added veteran litigator and trial lawyer John M. Erbach as a Partner in its Richmond office, strengthening the firm’s intellectual property and commercial litigation capabilities in Virginia.
87 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027. The attorneys selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2026 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 31 attorneys in 16 practice areas at the National and State level.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Bruce D. Bernstein has joined the firm as a Litigation Partner in Washington, D.C. With over 25 years of experience as a commercial litigator and trial lawyer, both in private practice and with the Department of Justice, Mr. Bernstein has a track record of successfully litigating and prevailing in complex commercial direct and class actions, at all levels, including before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as other federal and state courts.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Mohamed F. Sweify has joined the firm in New York. Mr. Sweify is an international arbitration practitioner and New York litigator, with 15 years of experience representing clients in complex litigation, international arbitration and alternative dispute resolution involving complex domestic, cross-border and international disputes.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Mariam Tadros Remy has joined the firm as a Litigation Partner. She will be based in the firm’s Falls Church, Virginia, office.
Whiteford is pleased to welcome Joseph K. Jones and Benjamin J. Wolf to the firm in New York as Senior Counsel and Counsel, respectively. In joining the firm, they will also open a Whiteford location in New Jersey in the coming months.
Benchmark Litigation, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers, has announced that eleven Whiteford attorneys have been named 2026 “Litigation Stars” in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Nationally.
Virginia Lawyers Weekly has recognized three Whiteford attorneys for its 2025 “Leaders in Law” and “Up and Coming Lawyers” awards. Partners Vernon E. Inge, Jr. and Stephen M. Faraci, Sr. have been named “Leaders in Law” and associate Claudia Lopez-Knapp has been named an “Up and Coming Lawyer.”
83 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2025 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 31 attorneys in a record 15 practice areas at the National and State level.
Whiteford is pleased to welcome veteran lawyer and former Assistant United States Attorney James B. Gatehouse to the firm. He joins as a business litigation partner after five years of service as an AUSA in the Western District of North Carolina. In doing so, he is opening the firm’s newest location in Charlotte.
Whiteford announced today that it has opened a new office in West Palm Beach, its first in Florida, with Steven Ellison joining the firm as the Office Managing Partner.
Virginia Lawyers Weekly has recognized Stephen Faraci as a "Virginia's Go To Lawyer" for Business Litigation. The "Go To Lawyers" program recognizes attorneys who are experts in their field, well-versed in relevant case law, statutes and regulations, with a proven record of success and creative problem-solving abilities.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2024 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
Benchmark Litigation, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers, has announced that thirteen Whiteford attorneys have been named 2024 “Litigation Stars,” “Future Stars,” “Labor and Employment Stars,” and “40 & Under” in DC, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (*new recognition in 2024).
87 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 (copyright 2023 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). New practice areas of recognition include CleanTech Law and Entertainment and Sports Law. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Virginia Lawyers Weekly has recognized Stephen M. Faraci Sr. and Michael H. Brady as “Virginia’s Go To Lawyers.” Attorneys honored as leading lawyers in their field of law are nominated by their colleagues and chosen by a panel from Lawyers Weekly.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2023 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
Benchmark Litigation, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers, has announced that sixteen Whiteford attorneys have been named 2023 “Litigation Stars,” “Future Stars,” “Labor and Employment Stars,” and “40 & Under Hotlist” in DC, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.
73 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 (copyright 2022 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C. offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2022 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 29 attorneys in 14 practice areas at the National and State level.
Benchmark Litigation, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers has announced that sixteen Whiteford attorneys have been named 2022 “Litigation Stars,” “Future Stars,” “Labor and Employment Stars,” and “40 & Under Hotlist” in DC, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.
A record 75 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 (copyright 2021 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2021 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 25 attorneys in 11 practice areas in 3 states and the District of Columbia.
Whiteford Taylor & Preston announced today that Joshua D. Stiff has joined the firm as Counsel and will reside in a new office the firm has opened in Virginia Beach, VA.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2021. Twenty-two of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s Bankruptcy and Environmental Law practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings.
Benchmark Litigation, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers has announced that ten Whiteford attorneys have been named 2021 “Litigation Stars” and “Future Stars” in Maryland and Virginia.
A record 71 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2021 (copyright 2020 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2020 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 23 attorneys in 10 practice areas in 3 states and the District of Columbia.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2020. Twenty of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, including two bankruptcy practices with national Tier 1 rankings. At the state level, an additional forty-two practices have been ranked in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and VA.
Earlier this year, Benchmark Litigation named Whiteford, Taylor & Preston its 2019 “Maryland Law Firm of the Year.” Today, the widely respected guide to leading litigation firms and lawyers has announced that a record eleven Whiteford attorneys have been named 2020 “Litigation Stars” and “Future Stars” in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.
64 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2020. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that twenty of its attorneys are listed among the 2019 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in D.C., Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2019 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2018 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 29 attorneys in a record 12 practice areas in 4 states, the District of Columbia and Afghanistan.
Baltimore – Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2018. Nineteen of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, including three practices with national Tier 1 rankings: Litigation, Bankruptcy and Real Estate. At the state level, an additional fifty practices have been ranked in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and VA.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2017 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes a record 29 attorneys in 4 states, the District of Columbia and Afghanistan.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that 41 of its attorneys are listed among the 2017 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in Maryland and Kentucky joining the sixteen who were listed earlier this year in Delaware, D.C., Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that, in addition to ranking the firm highly in its 2016 list of Maryland’s leading firms and business lawyers, Chambers and Partners have added new Whiteford lawyers in Maryland and Delaware.
The practice group rankings are based on the high rankings of 21 individual lawyers.
Fifty-nine lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2016 (copyright 2015 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Maryland, Washington and Virginia offices.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that the 2015 edition of Chambers USA recognizes 17 of its lawyers as leaders in their fields and, in addition, has ranked six of Whiteford’s practice areas.
Marla J. Diaz represented a client who was sued by Transurban for unpaid tolls, administrative costs, and civil penalties exceeding $2,200.00, arising from the client’s use of the HOT Lanes on Virginia’s I-495 beltway. Ms. Diaz successfully argued that the Transurban claims were barred by the relevant statute of limitations and all summons against her client were dismissed.
Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP is very gratified to announce that the firm has once again received exemplary ratings in the fifth annual U.S. News & World Report rankings of law firms.
Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP is very gratified to announce that the firm has received exemplary ratings in the second annual U.S. News & World Report rankings of law firms. In Maryland, WTP was rated highly in 34 practice areas, more than any other firm in the state.
For the first time, Legal Media Group, publisher of the well-known guide Benchmark Litigation: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys, which focuses exclusively on litigation in the United States, has researched and ranked the nation’s top plaintiff lawyers in their new Benchmark Plaintiff guide.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston (WTP) attorneys, Paul M. Nussbaum and William F. Ryan, Jr., presented on Investing In Distressed Securities During Troubled Economic Times at the International Quality and Productivity Center's (IPCQ) Global Distressed Debt West Coast Investor Forum, Los Angeles, California, on March 31-April 2, 2008.
