Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel lists 58 lawyers, all in Washington, but it has had a significant presence in appellate courts around the country during the past year and often in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Partner David Frederick has argued four cases in this Supreme Court term: one pending, two losses, one victory — and all important to consumers and businesses. Other repeat performers in the high court and lower state and federal appellate courts are partners Michael Kellogg and Aaron Panner. Kellogg is awaiting a decision in a potentially major arbitration class action that he argued in February — American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. "We’re blessed to have a robust practice in an ever widening range of subject matters in courts throughout the country," Frederick said. "Our many outstanding associates are getting terrific experience in cases of great moment."

Frederick successfully defended on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Kaiser Foundation Health Plan’s $142 million trial award against Pfizer for racketeering and California unfair trade practices damages in connection with Pfizer Inc.’s fraudulent off-label marketing of Neurontin. And the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, rejected Amgen Inc.’s argument that because the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, represented by Frederick, asserted fraud-on-the-market reliance, the trial court was required to make such findings at the class certification stage.

Kellogg persuaded the Supreme Court on AT&T Corp.’s behalf to deny review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of Section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which immunized from suit telecommunications companies that cooperated with government intelligence gathering.

The firm represented Shahid Khan in alleging that he had been defrauded by Deutsche Bank A.G. and others in connection with foreign currency investment schemes. Frederick persuaded the Illinois Supreme Court that Khan’s suit was not time-barred because he brought it within a reasonable period after the Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deductions that Deutsche Bank had counseled him were reasonable.

Frederick, consumer organizations and the generic drug industry are awaiting the Supreme Court decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett. Frederick, representing Karen Bartlett, argued that federal law does not pre-empt a district court’s judgment awarding compensatory damages to his client for severe injuries resulting from use of a generic pain medication manufactured by Mutual.