Patricia Hamill,

• Represented a male student who was disciplined on sexual misconduct charges, and brought litigation in federal court against Brandeis University. The court’s comprehensive decision denying the University’s motion to dismiss vindicated our client when the court found “that Brandeis denied [the student] the ‘basic fairness’ to which he was entitled,” and also opined “Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” The ruling (Doe v. Brandeis University, No. 2:14-cv-532, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43499 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2016) has been cited in virtually every lawsuit subsequently filed by an accused student and hailed by many as one of the most far-reaching decisions supporting student rights and for its advocacy of common sense and fairness in the handling of campus disciplinary matters. (See, for example: “Denying Due Process” (chapter 4) in The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson, and “The Campus Sex-Crime Tribunals are Losing,” The Commentary Magazine, September 8, 2017, KC Johnson.) The case was also cited by the Department of Education in its September 2017 Guidance withdrawing the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and the 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.

• Achieved a favorable settlement for a student who was expelled shortly before the end of his senior year. His college concluded our client had participated in livestreaming a consensual sexual encounter between two other students, though even the alleged female victim told the college he was not involved. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the college in violation of Title IX, concluding it had not provided our client (or other accused male students) with essential procedural protections and had not followed the safeguards provided for in its own disciplinary policies and procedures. Faced with a potential federal lawsuit, the college agreed to make a substantial monetary payment, vacate the finding of responsibility and sanctions against our client, and give him a clean record.

• Represented a male, African-American student at the University of Pennsylvania who was wrongly accused of sexual assault and subjected to an unfair, biased, and discriminatory disciplinary process. Filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the University of Pennsylvania in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting claims under Title IX and Title VI, as well as common law claims for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court denied in part the University’s motion to dismiss, allowing our client to proceed on claims for breach of contract and Title IX violations. This matter subsequently resolved. Doe v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-05088, 2017 WL 4049033 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2017).
• Represented a male student against a public university alleging denial of the student’s due process rights, in large part because the university delayed close to a year in initiating a disciplinary hearing to address a misconduct claim against the student, a delay that resulted in the departure from campus of key witnesses. The student had completed his coursework and earned his degree, yet the university withheld his degree as it had not completed its disciplinary process. Conrad O’Brien attorneys argued that the delay violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The case settled after argument on Doe’s motion for preliminary injunction and the University’s motion to dismiss.
• Represented a male student in litigation against a college challenging the result of a sexual misconduct disciplinary finding. Following the court’s finding that the college’s disciplinary process was flawed, the court reversed the college’s decision against our client. We then successfully moved the court to rule that the college could not retry our client in a new proceeding based on the amount of time that had passed since the original decision and the fact that witnesses had graduated and were no longer available. The court entered an order precluding the college from bringing any further disciplinary actions against our client and further ordered the college to completely expunge his record. 

• Represented a male student in litigation against a private university near Chicago, challenging the result of the sexual misconduct disciplinary finding that resulted in the student’s extended exclusion from the university and which required reapplication without a guarantee of re-admission and with a permanent disciplinary notation on his record. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court and asserted violations of Title IX and breach of contract. The case settled within five months of filing the complaint.

• Represented a male student in litigation challenging Rider University’s Title IX proceeding finding our client responsible for sexual assault. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court and asserted violations of Title IX and breach of contract based on allegations that the University investigation and adjudication was flawed and biased against male respondents. We successfully overcame two motions to dismiss, where the Court ruled that our client brought a valid breach of contract claim and a valid Title IX claim. The case resolved via settlement.   
• Conrad O’Brien attorneys were successful in obtaining a ruling in California state court ordering the University of Southern California to set aside the suspension and expulsion of our client, a male student, for alleged nonconsensual sexual activity with two female students who claimed to have been too intoxicated to give consent. The California Superior Court issued a decision finding that USC failed to provide a fair hearing to our client and that the decisions to suspend and expel him were not supported by the evidence. The court reasoned that USC denied John his due process rights to a fair proceeding under California state law because (among other shortcomings) it did not provide him with “an adequate opportunity … to test the credibility of the material witnesses in a limited adversarial hearing before the decision is made” (see Statement of Decision Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate). Doe v. Ainsley Carry and University of Southern California, Case No. BS 161569 (Los Angeles County Superior Ct., Sept. 15, 2017 unpublished decision).
• Brought action against Swarthmore College on behalf of a student expelled in the wake of a disciplinary proceeding following allegations of sexual misconduct. Brought litigation in federal district court, asserting claims under Title IX as well as common law claims, including breach of contract. Swarthmore vacated its college judiciary panel’s findings and sanction after additional information became available that both parties believed raised questions about the impartiality of the panel that heard our client’s case and the fairness of the hearing process and the matter settled. Doe v. Swarthmore College, No. 2:14-cv-000532 (E.D. Pa.).

Patricia has spent more than 20 years appearing in federal and state courts throughout the country, representing Fortune 500 companies to successfully defend consumer fraud and securities class action lawsuits as well as other complex commercial litigation. Patricia also routinely represents her corporate clients in business-to-business litigation and has substantial experience in successfully representing companies in False Claims Act and other whistleblower litigation.

• Represented Hewlett-Packard and HP Financial Services Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a breach of contract and warranty action arising out of the installation of various storage-related products and software. After initial motion practice, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed HP Financial Services Company, and the case successfully settled before HP incurred significant discovery costs.
• Represented a startup company that developed online and mobile products for the management of diabetes and other chronic medical conditions in a breach of contract action against a global pharmaceutical company known for its insulin products. Our client and the pharmaceutical company had closely partnered for a number of years to develop, publicize and explore the market for our client’s products with the goal of the pharmaceutical company purchasing our client. The pharmaceutical company abruptly terminated the relationship on the eve of finalizing the purchase agreement, leaving our client without future funding and facing destruction of its business. Following initial motion practice for a preliminary injunction, the pharmaceutical company agreed to a settlement that allowed our client to continue its business operations.
• Obtained summary judgment for a technology client in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit arising out of our client’s participation in a consortium to offer services and technology to a school district in connection with the federal E-rate program. Three consortium members sued our client in Texas state court alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and other claims. Our client moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, and after oral argument, the judge granted summary judgment from the bench, and that decision was affirmed on appeal.

Class Action

• Consumer Class Action. Represented an international bank sued in a federal district court in New Jersey in a class action that alleged improprieties in the company’s assessment of late fees on equipment leases; after filing a motion to dismiss, convinced the putative class to dismiss its claims voluntarily.
• Consumer Class Action. Represented a debt management company in a consumer class action relating to claims arising under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and unfair trade practices statutes. Secured a favorable settlement for our client after initial motion practice.
• Insurance. Represented three AEGON companies in long-running putative consumer class action suits in New Mexico state court in which plaintiffs sought nationwide certification for alleged breach of contract and failure to disclose modal premium charges.  Achieved success for our clients in all three cases. The plaintiffs in two of the cases voluntarily dismissed their nationwide putative class actions after initial motion practice, Cadigan v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., No. D-101-CV-99-2619, and after we filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, Wodzinski v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co., No. D-101-CV-2000-2816.  In the third case, after extensive briefing and multiple oral arguments on the issues related to nationwide class certification, the parties agreed to a settlement of the case, limiting the class to a small pool comprising only New Mexico residents.  
• Insurance. Represented People’s Benefit Life Insurance Company in Pennsylvania state court in a national consumer class action.  The putative class claimed the insurer had breached contractual and fiduciary duties when it calculated the death benefits owed on variable annuity products.  Class certification denied.  

Receiverships

• Patricia serves as the court-appointed receiver, with Conrad O’Brien attorneys acting as counsel, in an action brought by the FTC against entities in the technical support services industry who are alleged to have misrepresented their services to tens of thousands of customers who paid at least $17.9 million for the allegedly fraudulent services. As receiver, Patricia was tasked with taking control of the business operations of corporate defendants and securing two separate physical locations, several virtual offices, and numerous financial accounts, websites, and phone numbers. She continues to preserve and administer the assets of the receivership estate.

• Patricia serves as the court-appointed receiver, with Conrad O’Brien attorneys acting as lead counsel, in an action brought by the FTC in federal court in the Western District of New York, against entities and individuals in the debt collections industry found to be conducting business in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Act (FDCA) and related state statutes. The FTC determined that an excess of $8 million was collected by the agencies from individual consumers using unlawful practices. Patricia and her counsel worked in conjunction with the government to assess the nature of the agencies’ practices; halt all collection activities; manage the remaining operations of the agencies; handle a variety of employment, payroll, and tax issues; collect, analyze, and respond to a variety of claims made against the agencies; and worked with forensic accountants to recover and maximize the assets of the receivership.

• Represented the court-appointed receiver in an SEC enforcement action in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the operator of a Ponzi-like scheme who stole tens of millions of dollars from investors in hedge funds he managed. Through actions or threatened actions against company insiders, accountants, and “net winner” investors, recovered and restored to innocent investors nearly 80% of the funds invested.
• Represented the receiver in an enforcement action brought by the FTC in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against a number of related telemarketing businesses alleged to have been involved in the national marketing of fraudulent credit cards. The case settled with the defendant business operators for more than $7.5 million, providing nearly 100% restitution to the victims.
• Represented a federally-appointed receiver in an enforcement action brought by the federal government in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a third-party payment processing company and its principals, who were alleged to have facilitated a nationwide fraudulent telemarketing scheme. Successfully recovered over $1 million from a national bank to fund a Consumer Restitution Program for victims of the fraud. Our efforts against the bank uncovered information that launched further government action, resulting in the recovery of more than $150 million to fund a full restitution program for the victims.

Insurance Litigation

• Presently represent an insurer in federal district court litigation alleging that plaintiffs, a small business and its owner, were induced to enter an employee welfare benefit plan and purchase cash-value life insurance policies based on misrepresentations concerning tax benefits. Plaintiffs have alleged claims under ERISA (§419), RICO, and state law against the individuals and entities involved in developing, selling, and administering the plan, as well as against the insurer that issued the policy. In a related case, the Department of Labor has separately filed a civil enforcement action against the plan fiduciaries.
• Represented, for the past two decades, numerous insurers nationwide in both state and federal courts in consumer-related class action litigation involving sales practices, product pricing, product disclosures, and rate increases, as well as business-to-business litigation and significant claims.

Securities Litigation

• Represented an insurance holding company against three separate putative class actions asserting direct and derivative claims in state and federal court, in connection with a proposed merger valued at approximately $220 million. Each of the lawsuits sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote and prevent the merger from closing. Filed motions to dismiss the state actions and negotiated a standstill agreement with the federal plaintiff pending the results of the state lawsuits. Negotiated a favorable global settlement of all three lawsuits that did not alter the merger consideration and allowed the merger to go forward on its original timetable.
• Represented a former officer of a medical equipment financing company in proceedings that arose after the company filed for bankruptcy. The proceedings included lawsuits and class actions by the bankruptcy trustee, shareholders, bondholders and financial institutions, and investigations by the SEC and the Department of Justice. The DOJ declined prosecution and, after a lengthy Wells process, the SEC declined to pursue an enforcement action against our client. Two of the civil cases were settled with a minimal contribution from our client, and class action shareholder plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss our client with no monetary settlement.
• Represented a former interim chief financial officer for a startup company that was alleged to have operated the largest green-energy Ponzi scheme in the United States. A class action and a parallel civil action filed by the receiver for the startup company asserted various claims against the former CFO along with other professionals associated with the company. In addition to defending against those actions, Patricia also assisted the former CFO in a coverage dispute with multiple insurers. Patricia secured coverage and obtained a global settlement agreement resolving both lawsuits without any payments from the former interim CFO.
• Represented the chief financial officer of a bankrupt subprime lender in a federal securities class action and state court litigation in Pennsylvania. Successfully settled the federal and state cases, negotiating on our client’s behalf with the D&O insurance carrier to pay the settlement amounts.
• Represented a FINRA registered representative in civil and regulatory proceedings related to his former employment. Successfully defended our client both in the civil liability proceedings and in a separate insurance coverage declaratory relief action. On the regulatory side, advised the client through all phases of the FINRA investigation, including negotiating on the client’s behalf a disposition of the matter involving no payment of restitution, disgorgement, or any fines.

• Patricia represents, counsels, and conducts internal investigations for clients who face potential criminal liability from federal and state grand jury investigations. In counseling clients on preventative strategies and compliance, she has helped companies avoid litigation, scrutiny, and substantial penalties time and time again. Patricia is equally comfortable with both the civil and criminal issues that inevitably arise in such representations, and she is an effective negotiator who works hard to avoid criminal exposure for her clients and to minimize any potential civil liability.
• Represented an investment advisor firm with $800 million of assets under management in connection with a three-year SEC investigation. The client faced $3 million in alleged disgorgement payments and penalties, and various charges including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; three officers were facing a five-year bar. Patricia successfully convinced the SEC to forego a Wells process, and the case settled on the basis of a negligent breach of fiduciary duty, with the investment advisor firm paying less than 1% of the original disgorgement sought and the company’s CEO paying a modest fine without being barred or suspended.
• Worked closely with our client, a worldwide technology company, and its compliance department, in-house counsel, and business executives to assist our client in fulfilling its responsibilities under a 3-year federal compliance agreement negotiated with the FCC in the wake of a government investigation.

E-rate Compliance

• Retained by clients in the technology industry to develop and monitor internal programs to ensure compliance with competitive bidding and gift rule requirements arising out of the federal E-rate program, which provides subsidies for schools and libraries to obtain telecommunications and internet access. As part of the education team, Patricia works closely with inside legal, compliance, and business personnel to support business development and monitor compliance; planning and oversight of internal audits; employee and third party training; and advocacy to federal regulators on unsettled legal issues.