Marc A. Goldman
Partner
mgoldman@masseygail.com
Tel: 202.652.4511

Massey & Gail LLP
1325 G Street, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202.652.4511
Fax: 312.379.0467

vCard

Marc A. Goldman

Marc A. Goldman has two decades of litigation experience. From 1994 through February 2015, he worked at Jenner & Block, where he became an equity partner in 2002.

He has handled a wide array of complex commercial matters (both individual disputes and class actions) including securities, contract, patent, and constitutional disputes, among others. He also has represented many clients in regulatory rulemakings and in related litigation, including agency enforcement actions, challenges to rulemakings, and litigation between commercial actors substantially impacted by regulatory regimes (telecommunications, securities, and energy in particular). For example, he served as national counsel to a major telecommunications carrier in more than a dozen high stakes cases concerning regulatory arbitrage schemes—cases that were litigated before the FCC, district courts, and courts of appeal and that all resulted in dismissals or favorable settlements. He also has filed more than fifteen briefs before the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, Mr. Goldman has devoted significant time to pro bono work including class actions on behalf of public housing residents that resulted in significant consent decrees, a habeas action on behalf of the second Guantanamo detainee charged with war crimes that helped facilitate a favorable plea agreement, and a successful challenge to a voter purge in Florida on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and individual voters.

In the spring of 1999, he served as a visiting professor of constitutional law at the University of Iowa Law School.

Education

  • Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1993. Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
  • Harvard College, A.B., magna cum laude, 1988. Ranked in top 5 in nation in college debate.
  • Harvard Graduate School 1988-90. Completed coursework and examples for a Ph.D. in Government.

Clerkship

  • The Honorable Edward Becker, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • United States Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Awards, Honors, and Publications

  • Making Sense of Prometheus, Intellectual Property, ABA Section of Litigation, (September 12, 2012).
  • The USTA Decisions and the Rise and Fall of Telephone Competition, 22 Communications Lawyer (Summer 2004).
  • Case Comment, Grounds for Modification of Consent Decrees: Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 106 Harvard Law Review (1992).
  • Panel, Washington College of Law, Supreme Court Series:  Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc ; available at http://www.pijip-impact.org/lexmark (December 12, 2013). 

Community Involvement

  • Founding Board Member of Washington Urban Debate League.
  • Active pro bono practice.

Representative Cases

  • Telecommunications
    • Served as lead counsel for Sprint in Beehive Telephone Co., Inc v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (D. Utah, 2:10-cv-00052), leading to dismissal of complaint based on principles of issue preclusion.
    • Served as lead counsel for Sprint in Beehive Telephone Co., Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (D. Utah, 2:08-cv-00380), leading to dismissal of Beehive’s claims under Section 207 of Communications Act and continuation of case as to Sprint’s counterclaims.
    • Served as lead counsel for Sprint in Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Northern Valley Communications, LLC (FCC, EB-11-MD-003), leading to invalidation of Northern Valley’s tariff as inconsistent with multiple statutory and regulatory provisions.
    • Served as lead counsel to Sprint in a plethora of other cases involving regulatory arbitrage, leading to favorable settlements.
    • Served as lead counsel to major telecommunications carrier in three class actions concerning overbilling, resulting in dismissal of one and successful resolution of the other two prior to class certification.
    • Served as counsel to major telecommunications carrier on appeals related to telecommunications issues, including Supreme Court cases on the meaning of the Communications Act of 1996, the interaction between the antitrust laws and the Communications Act, and the interaction of abstention doctrines and the Communications Act.
    • Represented clients in numerous FCC proceedings including proceedings to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, such as an FCC arbitration on pricing models, and proceedings to obtain approval of mergers.
  • Finance and Securities
    • Advised major financial institution on Dodd Frank financial regulations.
    • Advised major financial institution on issues related to relationships of banks and financial aggregators.
    • Represented GM in a later-settled SEC investigation involving pension, derivatives and commodities accounting and disclosure issues.
    • Represented bankrupt Fortune 500 company in successful effort to obtain recourse from banks that sold auction rate securities that later became nearly valueless.
    • Helped defend largest FINRA arbitration award in history arising from the failure of the auction rate securities market.
  • Other regulatory
    • Represented North Carolina Public Utilities Commission in investigation of potential misrepresentations in merger of energy companies.
    • Represented a subsidiary of Delta Airlines in D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2013 rule on renewable fuel standards and in crafting strategy at EPA to waive or revise policy going forward.
  • Contract
    • Represented JP Morgan Chase in successful appeal of judgment for breach of brokerage contract.
  • Intellectual Property
    • Drafted amicus brief for American Intellectual Property Law Association in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., regarding standing for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Brief was described as “powerful” in a Scotusblog article and many of its arguments were accepted in the Supreme Court’s decision. Mr. Goldman participated in a panel in the case with video at http://www.pijip.org/lexmark.
    • Drafted amicus brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in the Bilski v. Kappos Supreme Court case on the scope of patentable subject matter.
    • Helped successfully defend a major patent verdict at the Federal Circuit and to obtain a remand for award of additional damages.
    • Drafted multiple Federal Circuit briefs on claim construction, validity, inequitable conduct and attorneys’ fees.
    • Drafted summary judgment motion that helped facilitate successful settlement of patent litigation between MCI and AT&T.
  • Pro Bono
    • Represented two Florida voters and a coalition of nonprofits in response to a 2012 voter purge in Florida, resulting in: (1) an 11th Circuit decision declaring the purge illegal because such systematic purges could not occur within 90 days of a federal election, and (2) settlement of other claims resulting in restoration of voters to the rolls prior to the 2012 election.
    • Defended one of the first two Guantanamo detainees charged with war crimes. Case resulted in plea bargain, six month sentence and release.
    • Represented class of plaintiffs in suit alleging discrimination in Miami public housing and Section 8 program, resulting in consent decree altering intake procedures and other aspects of housing system for 10 years.
    • Successfully argued Fourth Circuit appeal precluding modification of consent decree in Baltimore case involving desegregation of public housing.
    • Prepared Supreme Court amicus brief for coalition of social scientists in Town of Greece v. Galloway. arguing that prayer before town council meetings is coercive in a manner different than that before federal or state legislative sessions.
    • Represented coalition of law professors in filing of Supreme Court amicus brief in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, arguing that post-trial challenge to jury’s verdict should be permitted based on evidence of racial bias in jury deliberations.