Education

Boston University School of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, 1997

  • Editor, Boston University Law Review, 1996-1997

Berklee College of Music, B.M., magna cum laude, 1993

Clerkship

Law Clerk, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1998-1999

Law Clerk, Judge Catherine C. Blake, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 1997-1998


Photo of Scott K. Attaway

Scott K. Attaway

Of Counsel
  • ph: 202.326.7935
  • fx: 202.326.7999
  • Email
  • vCard

Scott Attaway has been with the firm since 1999, and focuses primarily on appeals in the United States Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court.  As illustrated below, his civil litigation practice has covered a wide variety of complex subjects, including securities, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and interstate water law.

Noteworthy Representations

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Pfizer, Inc., -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 1320408, No. 11-1904 (1st Cir. April 3, 2013).  Currently helping to represent Kaiser in defending on appeal a favorable jury verdict against Pfizer of approximately $150 million for fraudulent off-label drug marketing.  On April 3, 2013, an appellate panel of three judges including retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter affirmed the district court’s judgment.

CUNA Mutual Insurance Society v. RBS Securities, Inc., No. 11-cv-5474 (D. Wis.).  Currently helping to represent a plaintiff investor in seeking a refund of approximately $70 million that it paid for residential mortgage-backed securities, in reliance on material misrepresentations made by the seller and that resulted in the securities losing nearly all of their value.

Farina v. Nokia Inc., No. 10-1064 (U.S.).  Successfully helped represent defendant mobile phone providers in persuading the Supreme Court to deny review of a Third Circuit decision holding that state-law claims alleging that the Federal Communications Commission had adopted inadequate standards concerning permissible amounts of radiation from mobile phones were preempted by federal law.

Indian Brands Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Protection Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2009).  Successfully represented blueberry farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by a pesticide.  Argued case and obtained 3-0 reversal of summary judgment.


Fisher v. City of San Jose, California, 558 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).  Successfully represented the City of San Jose and its police department on Fourth Amendment issues concerning a twelve-hour armed standoff.  Argued case before 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, and obtained a 6-5 reversal of the initial adverse appellate decision.

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).  Successfully helped represent a musician who tragically lost her arm due to an improperly administered drug. The Supreme Court agreed with our position that FDA approval of the drug's label did not absolve the manufacturer from its duty under state law to warn prescribing doctors about known risks.  The Court affirmed the state jury verdict in favor of our client, over the objection of the United States and numerous industry participants before the Court as amici curiae (or interested parties).

New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (2008).  Successfully helped represent the State of Delaware in a case brought under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by the State of New Jersey, which sought to build a liquefied natural gas unloading dock extending from the New Jersey shore onto submerged lands belonging to Delaware.  The case raised fascinating and challenging historical questions dating back to the original grant of territory in 1682 by the Duke of York to William Penn.  The Court agreed with Delaware that a 1905 interstate compact between the States required Delaware’s approval before any such project could be built.

South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, Original (U.S. filed 2007).  Successfully helped represent the State of South Carolina in obtaining adequate flows from an interstate river originating in North Carolina through eventual settlement following several years of litigation and development of expert analyses by hydrologists and economists. 

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006).  Successfully helped represent a group of plaintiff investors seeking to keep their cases in the state court where they were filed.  In a decision interpreting the scope of “removal jurisdiction” of the federal courts, the Supreme Court agreed with our position and reversed the decision below.

Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005).  Successfully helped represent a defendant real property owner seeking to remove a case filed in state court to federal court.  In another case concerning the “removal jurisdiction” of federal courts, the Supreme Court agreed with our position and reversed the decision below.

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005).  Successfully helped represent Texas farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by a pesticide that contained inadequate warnings on its label.  In a watershed decision that limited the instances in which federal law may be deemed to preempt state laws, the Supreme Court effectively reversed or abrogated more than fifty adverse lower court decisions in similar cases, over the objection of the United States and numerous industry participants that participated before the Court as amici curiae (or interested parties).

Publications

The Case for Constitutional Discrimination in Taxation of Out-of-State Municipal Bonds, 76 Boston University Law Review 737 (1996). 

In Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008), the Supreme Court reached the result advocated for in this article, published while Mr. Attaway was in law school.  The Court held that a state constitutionally may tax investor income from municipal bonds issued by other states while declining to tax investor income from its own municipal bonds.  Mr. Attaway’s article was cited in theamicus brief filed by forty-nine states, and the Attorney General for the lead state on that brief kindly stated in a letter to Mr. Attaway that his article helped substantially in developing the Constitutional legal theories on which the states prevailed.