Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

John Carney Chairs and Speaks, Jimmy Fokas Speaks at PLI Basics of Accounting for Lawyers 2025

Webinar Series: Transforming Legacy Management Experience

Rebecca Schrote Presents on APEX Depositions at Columbus Bar Association CLE Session

To Help the New Administration Help Your Industry, You Need an Agency Strategy (Real Estate Finance Journal)

Brett represents financial institutions and other commercial entities in complex litigation with a focus on class action defense. He has successfully defended clients in high-stakes lawsuits challenging a wide variety of banking practices under federal and state laws. Brett also helps banks manage distressed loans and counsels banks on some regulatory matters. Brett is a member of the team serving as court-appointed counsel to the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

core/freeform

J.D., The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 1998

B.A., The Ohio State University, 1995

Cleveland

Bloomberg’s article “Madoff Victims to Get $322 Million in Trustee Payout” acknowledges BakerHostetler attorneys at announcement of fifth distribution plans

CNBC reports on BakerHostetler and the Madoff Recovery Initiative in article Madoff Recoveries Top $10 Billion With New Settlement, “… an amount virtually no one thought possible”

The Associated Press reports on BakerHostetler and the Madoff Recovery Initiative recoveries of $10.5 billion

BakerHostetler talks with USA Today about the SIPA Trustee’s fourth pro rata interim distribution; states Madoff Recovery Initiative nears $6 billion in distributions to allowed claimants

BakerHostetler’s settlement with JPMorgan Chase and the ongoing Madoff Recovery Initiative Discussed on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered

BakerHostetler appears on NPR’s All Things Considered to discuss Madoff Recovery Initiative; host Robert Siegel interviews SIPA Trustee Irving Picard and his Chief Counsel David Sheehan

Madoff Recovery Initiative surpasses $5 billion in distributions to allowed claimants; CNBC’s Scott Cohn discusses latest recovery with BakerHostetler’s SIPA Trustee Irving Picard and his Chief Counsel David Sheehan

Madoff Recovery Initiative Marks Fourth Anniversary … Moves into Fifth Year Still Building Recovery Momentum

BakerHostetler’s work recovering more than half of the losses in the Madoff Ponzi scheme featured on WNYC in interview on The Brian Lehrer Show

Press Release: Second Interim Distribution of Recovered Funds to Madoff Claim Holders

Press Release: United States Supreme Court Denies Certiorari, Upholding Net Equity Decision in BLMIS Liquidation

The Wall Street Journal showcases BakerHostetler and the “unprecedented magnitude” of the global recovery efforts in article “The Madoff Liquidation, Three Years Later”

Press Release: Initial Interim Distribution of Recovered Funds to Madoff Claims Holders

The New York Times reports on BakerHostetler’s negotiation and settlement with the Picower Estate for $5 billion in the SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

Litigation

Commercial Litigation

Class Action Defense

IncuBaker – Emerging Technologies

Web3 and Digital Assets

Industries

Financial Services

<ul>
<li>Toldy v. Client 
Defeated class certification in a putative nationwide class action brought by an individual borrower alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiff alleged that the bank and its subsidiary, an affiliated real estate settlement service provider, engaged in kickbacks and fee splitting.</li>
<li>CCBI Murphy&#8217;s v. Client; LML v. Client 
Defeated multiple class action lawsuits that challenged a bank&#8217;s calculation of its variable interest rate loans. The plaintiffs sought to certify national and then state classes of commercial customers who received payment invoices that projected loan payments for a period during which the interest rate was unknown. The plaintiffs asserted claims under Ohio common law for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.</li>
<li>Klopfenstein v. Client; LML v. Client 
Representing a federally insured bank in a matter involving a novel banking product being offered to consumers. Represents the bank in five parallel putative nationwide class action lawsuits initially filed in federal courts, now consolidated into a single action that challenges the product, compares the bank to a payday lender and seeks to shut down the line of business. The lawsuit is a first of its kind and raises complicated issues of first impression in a highly regulated area of banking law overseen by a number of agencies. The plaintiffs have asserted 18 causes of action including class claims involving the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), usury and violations of numerous state consumer protection statutes and common laws.</li>
<li>Metz v. Client 
Successfully dismissed a statewide class action seeking to hold a client liable under the Uniform Commercial Code and Ohio common law in connection with a Ponzi scheme involving unregistered securities orchestrated by a third party.</li>
<li>Counsel to banks on various matters 
Counseled financial institutions on developing and taking to market various financial products, including short-term, small-dollar consumer credit products offered to account holders; counseled a bank on various obligations relative to third-party vendors; counseled a bank on various consumer-related issues under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, TILA, EFTA and state law counterparts; counseled a bank on interfacing with federal agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board.</li>
<li>State of Ohio, ex rel. David Joyce v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al. 
Currently defending Ohio&#8217;s three largest banks in a class action lawsuit brought by the prosecutor of Geauga County seeking to abolish the land instrument recordation Municipal Employees&#8217; Retirement System and to mandate the public recordation of all residential mortgage assignments in the state of Ohio.</li>
<li>Northampton v. Client 
Successfully moved to dismiss a multistate class action lawsuit challenging a client&#8217;s policy of electronically sequencing debits and credits from the largest to the smallest amounts. The plaintiffs&#8217; claims, brought under Ohio common law and the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987, were dismissed with prejudice.</li>
<li>Empire Title v. Client 
Favorably resolved a nationwide class action lawsuit asserting, among other actions, a civil RICO claim. The case was brought by a title company claiming it was &#8220;blacklisted&#8221; for refusing to provide kickbacks to, and split fees with, a client&#8217;s affiliated business provider, allegedly in violation of RESPA.</li>
<li>TriState Capital Bank v. Levis Land, LLC 
Defending a client against a variety of business tort and equitable claims brought by another lender in the aftermath of a commercial loan refinancing gone sour. The claims involve equitable subrogation, equitable estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, all predicated on the plaintiff&#8217;s allegation that a loan officer orally agreed to release a multimillion-dollar mortgage on real estate as part of a refinance of other debt.</li>
<li>Kopp v. Client 
In this statewide class action, the plaintiffs alleged that the firm&#8217;s client charged and collected improper fees in connection with automobile purchase and lease transactions it financed in Ohio and that it also paid improper referral fees to Ohio automobile dealers on these transactions. The matter involved claims under federal antitrust law, TILA and the Ohio Retail Sales Installment Act, and for aiding and abetting the automobile dealer&#8217;s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The entire case was successfully dismissed.</li>
</ul>

Brett A. Wall

Brett A. Wall

Experience

Recognitions and Memberships

Insights and News

Credentials

Community and Pro Bono

Areas of Focus

Industries

Services

Featured Insights