William DeVinney

Counsel

Washington, D.C.
T 202.861.1554  |  F 202.861.1783

William DeVinney has a broad litigation practice that includes antitrust, intellectual property, commercial class action, securities, and other complex commercial litigation. He has extensive trial experience, both as a member of trial teams and as first chair in jury and bench trials, arbitrations proceedings, and regulatory hearings. William has also argued cases before several federal and state appellate courts. He also counsels clients on antitrust issues.

Select Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
More »

Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
  • Defended multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company accused of monopolizing market for transgenic corn seed industry. Motion for class certification by plaintiff rejected by trial court and before Third Circuit on appeal.
  • Represented multinational technology company in private antitrust claim brought by competitor, as well as in investigations brought by the EU, Federal Trade Commission, and state government enforcement agencies.
  • Defended former executive of Bankers Trust Corporation in criminal trial and related SEC administrative proceedings arising from alleged improper accounting treatment of unclaimed funds. After six-week jury trial, client was acquitted of all 36 counts in indictment and favorable settlement was reached with SEC.

Pro Bono

  • Served as lead counsel for three congressmen and a public interest group filing amicus brief in United States Supreme Court.
  • Represented several clients in fair housing cases in antidiscrimination, fair housing, landlord/tenant, and contractual disputes.

Services

Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Education

  • J.D., William & Mary Law School, 1998
  • B.S., Cornell University, 1991

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
How to Avoid Antitrust Trouble in Wake of North Carolina Dental Ruling on State Action Immunity
July 25, 2016
BakerHostetler Antitrust Litigation Partners Robert Abrams, Gregory Commins, and Danyll Foix authored an article for The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2016, published by Global Competition Review. The article, headlined “United States...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Caution: Sealed Package – There Is More At Risk Than Unsealing
June 21, 2016
Parties litigating in courts across the country routinely file some documents under seal as a matter of course. Sealing filed documents often is a practical necessity – parties need not disclose certain confidential information in the...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Antitrust, Appointments and Presidential Front-Runners: Part 1
June 6, 2016
Substantial and substantive issues of national importance are often ­obscured by the usual myopic and frenzied focus on political talking points, sensational sound bites and collateral name-calling. This is perhaps better exemplified in...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Second Circuit Resurrects LIBOR Antitrust Case Against Bank Defendants, But Reprieve May Be Short-Lived
June 1, 2016
On May 23, 2016, the Second Circuit breathed new life into the class action case against 16 banks belonging to the British Bankers’ Association (the Banks), vacating the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of the case for lack of...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Is That a Carrot or a Stick in Your Hand? The Third Circuit Examines the Line Between Competition and Coercion in De Facto Exclusive Dealing Agreements
May 18, 2016
We recently wrote about attempts to force exclusivity onto customers. But firms with large or dominant market shares often must walk a fine line between properly offering customers percentage-based discounts and improperly coercing...
Read More ->