Practices


“It’s not just about litigation. It’s about solving our clients’ problems. This takes creativity, diligence, and, most importantly, a full understanding of each client’s business and what’s at stake.”
Scott Ford, Section Head

Litigation

We understand that litigation is not your business, but when a dispute arises, you need the best for your business. We appreciate that. That’s why we approach your problems with our aggressive drive and a strong sense of doing what’s best for you. We work with you to tailor a strategy that works for you. We deeply appreciate that often the best result for your business is an early resolution. But we also understand that no matter how diligent our efforts may be to resolve a case before going to trial, the most forceful strategy for resolving a case favorably is to let opponents know that we stand ready — if necessary — to win the case at trial. Our trial record unequivocally sends that message.

Mintz Levin litigators are well-known for their ability to take tough cases to trial and win. We excel in high-stakes litigation, because we have been there before. We have one of the largest and most distinguished litigation practices with a deep bench covering all aspects of complex business litigation. We work closely with lawyers in other disciplines to advise on key legal and industry matters that can impact your dispute resolution. We staff cases efficiently and work closely with clients to make sure that expectations and the cost of each phase of a case are met and satisfied. Our ultimate goal is to meet our clients’ business objectives, but always with the understanding that we are prepared to go to trial and have done so in virtually every jurisdiction in the country. 

We have extensive experience litigating cases in areas such as commercial contract disputes, fiduciary duty, shareholder disputes, partnership disputes, and business torts. Our litigators also regularly handle class actions. In addition to our extensive trial experience, we resolve cases through arbitration, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution.

Mergers and acquisitions can prompt litigation regarding alleged failure to close transactions and securities fraud. We represent all parties involved including individual directors and officers, targets, and acquirers. We also represent clients against allegations concerning breaches of corporate fiduciary duty in a variety of contexts. Our litigators have extensive experience and success appearing in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

We also have a number of specialized practice groups with extensive experience in a number of areas.

Quick Facts


  • National reputation as a go-to firm for high-stakes litigation sealed by numerous significant victories
  • Team members who have worked in law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies, including the SEC, DOJ, and offices of US attorneys, state attorneys, and state attorneys general
  • Trial attorneys have appeared in trial and appellate courts and arbitration proceedings in 48 states and the District of Columbia as well as in international arbitrations
  • Extensive Delaware court experience
  • Significant experience in government investigations and regulatory compliance
  • In-house Litigation Technology Group providing sophisticated and efficient IT support for discovery

Rankings & Recognitions

  • Recognized for excellence by the American College of Trial Lawyers, Chambers USA, Benchmark Litigation, Best Lawyers, and Super Lawyers
Sort by: Name  Title  Office

Steven A. Baddour

Steven A. Baddour

ML Strategies - Senior Vice President of Government Relations
Of Counsel

Mo Cowan

Mo Cowan

President & Chief Executive Officer
Of Counsel

Benjamin R. Sigel

Benjamin R. Sigel

Director of Client and Community Relations – Of Counsel

Case Study: Litigation Team Resolves Kosher Food Case Successfully

We achieved a significant victory for our client Manischewitz, a leading brand of kosher food products, in a dispute before the New York State Supreme Court. The plaintiff sued Orthodox Union and Manischewitz for violations of GBL 349, which bars businesses from engaging in deceptive acts or practices; intentional infliction of emotional distress; tortious interference with contract; prima facie tort; and defamation. The plaintiff alleged that Manischewitz and the Orthodox Union (OU) excluded him from the koshering process and that Manischewitz's products did not meet the OU kashrut standards required to be sold with the OU symbol. The New York State Supreme Court granted Manischewitz and the Orthodox Union’s motion to dismiss all causes of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Case Study: Mintz Levin Achieves Complete Victory for Shari Redstone

On behalf of our longtime client Shari Redstone, President of National Amusements and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Viacom Inc., Mintz Levin achieved a complete victory in a high profile, highly contentious dispute that challenged certain actions concerning the corporate governance of Viacom, including the proper composition of the Viacom board. Following months of litigation in Delaware and Massachusetts, a global settlement was achieved that dismissed all related lawsuits against Ms. Redstone and her father, Sumner Redstone, and affirmed the reconstitution of the Viacom board, including the election of five new independent directors by National Amusements, Inc, (the private company owned by the Redstones, and the majority voting shareholder of Viacom). The settlement has been hailed as a total win for the Redstone family and for Ms. Redstone.

Case Study: Firm Obtains Victory for CrossFit in Dispute with NSCA

In September, we obtained partial summary judgment for our client, CrossFit, Inc., against one of its largest competitors, National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA), as part of a highly public two-year dispute. In 2013, the NSCA published a study falsely claiming that CrossFit’s methodology injured participants at an alarming rate. The Court granted summary judgment on the element of falsity in CrossFit’s Lanham Act (false advertising) claims based on the false injury data. The NSCA led its own summary judgment motion, arguing that CrossFit, Inc.’s Lanham Act claims failed because the study at issue was published in an academic journal and was entitled to First Amendment protection. We defeated this motion for summary judgment on First Amendment grounds.

Upcoming

Past