William Markham and Dorn Bishop have litigated many business disputes and commercial claims and often obtained successful results because of their overall approach and thorough understanding of contract law, corporation law, and business torts.The essential business torts are (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) self-dealing; (3) misappropriation; (4) fraud — i.e., intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent … Continue readingThey can perform most kinds of business litigation or manage a team of lawyers specially assembled to litigate a particular case.
In addition, Mr. Markham and Mr. Bishop are well-trained in other areas of the law that sometimes have dispositive importance in business litigation. Mr. Bishop, before becoming a federal prosecutor, was a partner at Latham & Watkins and led its San Diego insurance group. In that capacity, he gained an excellent understanding of insurance contracts, the legal doctrines that govern their interpretation, and an insurer’s statutory and contractual duties to its insureds. Thus trained, he advises his clients and sometimes litigates their claims on these points, and in particular he has litigated substantial and landmark cases that resulted in significant reforms of California’s laws on insurance contracts and an insurer’s various duties to its insureds.
Mr. Markham has worked mostly on antitrust matters since the early 2000s, but before then he litigated and tried all manner of contract claims as well as various business torts, and he occasionally litigated claims for securities fraud under the principal federal and California anti-fraud statutes.See 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (codifies Securities Exchange Act § 10(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (promulgates SEC Rule 10b-5); see also California Corporations Code § 25401 et seq.He has also litigated substantial claims for false advertising and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. He continues to accept these kinds of cases from time to time and remains well-versed in these topics, having learned about them much earlier in his career.
Mr. Markham’s antitrust work also improves his ability to litigate other kinds of complex commercial litigation. He closely follows business and economic trends in various industries served by his clients, and, to improve his understanding of antitrust law, he has learned the fundamentals of classical economic theory, microeconomics, and industrial organization. That knowledge is also useful to him in complex business litigation and even when analyzing disputes in smaller cases.
Elsewhere on this site you can read more about our experience handling the following kinds of business litigation: trademark infringement and related offenses, false advertising, securities fraud, RICO claims, and insurance disputes.
Our Ability to Accept Large Cases
Several times we have been opposed by teams of highly capable attorneys fielded by leading global law firms. In any such matter, or whenever the need arises, we can quickly assemble our own team of first-rate professionals who have worked with us successfully on prior occasion, and we can also procure essential litigation services from reliable outside service-providers, so that we are never outmatched or overwhelmed even by the largest or most pro-active global firm. We think that our work in these matters has reflected favorably on us, and we have obtained successful results for our clients in exceedingly difficult, sprawling, and complex antitrust controversies. All the while, we are able to maintain our reasonable billing arrangements because of the manner in which our practice is structured and our lean fixed costs.
Our Articles on Antitrust Law
Mr. Markham has given lectures on antitrust law for other attorneys (MCLE classes) and written extensively about antitrust law. Mr. Markham also provides occasional commentary in his blog about antitrust issues that make the news. Below you will find links to three articles on antitrust law written by Mr. Markham that have become reference sources for other attorneys and the general public:
Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, © 2022)
A Misplaced, Recurring Critique. Some critics of antitrust law treat it as mere governmental overreach and an unwelcome infringement upon the ordinary operations of our free markets. Their refrain, it seems, is that each company should be left to do as it pleases in...
“Welcome Antitrust Reform Now Pending in Congress,” By William Markham, © 2021
Senator Klobuchar’s Bill Really Might Become Law. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has proposed a landmark antitrust bill, entitled the “Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act,” which after negotiation and modification might well receive bipartisan...
The Qualcomm Case Isn’t Even a Close Call: Qualcomm Blatantly Misused Its Standard-Essential Patents in Violation of Antitrust Law (By William Markham, © 2020)
The Extraordinary Qualcomm Case. The defining antitrust issues of our time are at stake in the landmark case of Fed Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2017, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LH) ("Qualcomm"). Qualcomm specifically concerns standard-essential patents and...
|↑1||The essential business torts are (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) self-dealing; (3) misappropriation; (4) fraud — i.e., intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and false promise; (5) interference (with existing contracts and future commercial dealings); and (6) trade libel.|
|↑2||See 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (codifies Securities Exchange Act § 10(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (promulgates SEC Rule 10b-5); see also California Corporations Code § 25401 et seq.|