Lee H. Simowitz

Partner

Washington, D.C.
T 202.861.1608  |  F 202.861.1783
Lee Simowitz focuses his practice on antitrust, trade regulation, and consumer protection law and has particular experience in matters involving the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the Newspaper Preservation Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and the Lanham Act. Lee is a contributor to BakerHostetler’s Antitrust Advocate blog, providing informative commentary on the latest developments in the antitrust litigation sector. Lee practices extensively before appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeal and state appellate courts. He successfully represented a minority broadcaster before the Supreme Court when the Court upheld a Federal Communications Commission affirmative action program against constitutional attack [Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)].

Select Experience

  • Extensive experience in antitrust litigation, including representing clients before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and state antitrust enforcement agencies, as well as in private treble-damage litigation.
  • Litigated antitrust cases in such industries as consumer electronics, agriculture, professional and amateur sports, auto parts, higher education, real estate, newspapers and newspaper features, soft drinks, airlines and transportation, surface mining, auto glass, and paper and packaging.
  • In the area of healthcare, litigated matters involving hospital staff privileges, hospital mergers, pharmacy and other provider networks, and integration by hospitals into home healthcare services and equipment.
More »

Experience

  • Extensive experience in antitrust litigation, including representing clients before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and state antitrust enforcement agencies, as well as in private treble-damage litigation.
  • Litigated antitrust cases in such industries as consumer electronics, agriculture, professional and amateur sports, auto parts, higher education, real estate, newspapers and newspaper features, soft drinks, airlines and transportation, surface mining, auto glass, and paper and packaging.
  • In the area of healthcare, litigated matters involving hospital staff privileges, hospital mergers, pharmacy and other provider networks, and integration by hospitals into home healthcare services and equipment.
  • Represents clients in merger and acquisition matters before the FTC and the Justice Department, including the required filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
  • Represented clients in both criminal and civil matters arising out of alleged conspiracies affecting electronics products, including liquid crystal display, and cathode ray display panels.
  • Represents clients in advertising and other consumer protection matters before the Federal Trade Commission and in private disputes under the Lanham Act.
  • Represented clients in investigations and litigation involving allegedly false or unsubstantiated advertising under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and credit matters under the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Credit Billing Act.
  • Represents clients before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Consumer Product Safety Act and the other statutes administered by the CPSC, involving industries, such as power tools, consumer communications equipment, and kitchen appliances.

Recognitions

  • The Best Lawyers in America© (2012 to 2016)
    • Washington, D.C.: Antitrust Law
  • BTI Client Service All-Star (2010)
  • Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent
  • Washington, D.C. "Super Lawyer" (2013 to 2015)

Memberships

  • W. Fugate, Foreign Commerce and the Antitrust Laws (Little Brown 5th ed. 1996): Contributor

Services

Industries

Prior Positions

 

  • Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection (1973 to 1977)
    • Staff Lawyer
    • Assistant to the Director
    • Advisor to the Chairman
  • Antitrust Law Developments (3d ed. 1992), ABA Antitrust Section: Editorial Board

Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1980
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1983
  • U.S. Supreme Court, 1984
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1985
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1998
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2008
  • District of Columbia, 1973

Education

  • J.D., Yale Law School, 1972
  • B.A., Harvard College, 1968

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Specific Guidance to Businesses Still Lacking in FTC Principles
August 31, 2015
In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, creating the Federal Trade Commission. Section 5 of the FTC Act declared “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful and gave the FTC enforcement power over such “unfair...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
FTC Finally Offers ‘Principles’ Governing Section 5 Powers, but Specific Guidance to Businesses Still Lacking
August 26, 2015
In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, creating the Federal Trade Commission. Section 5 of the FTC Act declared “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful and gave the FTC enforcement power over such “unfair...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Ruling on Economic Favoritism Puts ‘NC Dental’ Back in Spotlight
August 17, 2015
In a recent opinion, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an economic regulation passed by a state agency solely to protect one group from competition would not violate the constitutional...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Better Late Than Never? FTC Finally Releases Guidance on Section 5
August 13, 2015
After years of academic debate and internal deliberation, the Federal Trade Commission today unveiled a “Statement of Enforcement Principles” that vaguely describes conduct prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 5 gives the FTC...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Patent Defeats Antitrust in Latest Test at Supreme Court
July 14, 2015
In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to charge...
Read More ->