Skip to main content

Ashley A. Markson


[email protected]



Ashley focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation and government investigations. She advises clients in all stages of litigation in federal and state courts as well as in response to government investigations and enforcement actions involving the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Ashley has experience conducting legal research, preparing legal memoranda and motions, and assisting with discovery.

Prior to joining Mintz, Ashley served as a law clerk to the Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and as a law clerk and judicial fellow to the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. She also clerked for the Massachusetts Appeals Court, serving under the Honorable William J. Meade.

While attending law school, Ashley amassed extensive litigation experience by interning with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Boston and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire. She also served as a legal extern in the General Counsel’s Office of the Richmond Police Department in Richmond, Virginia. In law school, she served on the Virginia Law Review managing board as an articles editor.


The Supreme Court recently denied petitions for writs of certiorari in three closely watched cases where parties asked the Court to clarify the heightened pleading standard governing fraud allegations under the False Claims Act (FCA). The heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) require that, for allegations of fraud (which include FCA claims), “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Among other things, a cause of action for “false claims” must allege the defendants submitted false claims, or caused false claims to be submitted, to the government. The crux of the issue petitioners asked the Court to address is whether, to meet Rule 9(b)’s requirements for FCA causes of action, relators must allege in the complaint specific details of false claims allegedly submitted to the government for payment. This issue typically arises in qui tam cases under the FCA after the government declines to intervene.  

Read more
Read less