Mike is an appellate lawyer with a wide range of experience in both civil and criminal litigation. He has written over a hundred appellate briefs and presented twenty oral arguments in the federal courts of appeal. Mike is routinely hired not only for traditional appeals, but also to handle legal strategy and appellate preservation at the trial level, including arguing motions, jury instructions, and jury selection issues. Mike has worked on more than thirty trials in that role. In just the last three years, he has attended seven complete trials for four clients: Meta, Philip Morris, Monsanto, and J&J.
Mike’s work spans a number of substantive areas. In data privacy litigation, Mike has won two Ninth Circuit appeals for Meta: a challenge to its use of pixel technology, and a challenge to its use of facial recognition technology. In product liability cases, Mike has briefed appeals for a variety of clients—including Philip Morris, Walmart, Nissan, and Union Carbide—prevailing most recently in an appeal of a $43 million damages award against Philip Morris. Mike has brought appeals raising questions of due process, Article III standing, class certification, contract interpretation, tort law, federal preemption, excessive punitive damages, and many others. He has also defended judgments against appeals brought by his clients’ opponents; in 2024, for example, Mike argued and won a First Circuit appeal where the plaintiffs alleged that Volvo’s nationwide maintenance plans violated Massachusetts law.
Mike devotes a large part of his practice to clients facing threats to their life or liberty. He has represented clients convicted of murder, sexual assault, robbery, drug trafficking, and firearm offenses, as well as immigrants facing deportation for criminal offenses. Mike has had successes in these areas: an opinion by the Second Circuit vacating a client’s conviction for murder for hire; another Second Circuit opinion vacating the sentence of a client convicted of a drug conspiracy; a decision by the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacating a client’s conviction for robbery; and six federal appellate rulings barring the government from deporting immigrants to Mexico, Honduras, Jamaica, and Poland. Mike has also worked with clients seeking executive clemency; in 2024, one of Mike’s clients was granted a commutation of his federal death sentence.
Mike received his J.D. with high honors from The University of Chicago Law School, where he was a comments editor on the Law Review. After law school, Mike was a law clerk to Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Before joining Shook, Mike was a partner at Mayer Brown LLP and an associate at Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP. Law360 has named Mike a “Rising Star,” explaining that he “has amassed victories for Facebook and other companies over a career that has also been marked by his dedication to pro bono work.”
Representative Matters
Selected Appellate Wins
Second Circuit
Argueta v. Garland, 2022 WL 500459 (2d Cir. 2022): Argued appeal on behalf of client facing deportation to Honduras. The Second Circuit vacated the order of removal, holding that the agency had to reconsider his claim under the Convention Against Torture.
Fixed Income Shares v. Citibank, No. 18-1196 (2d Cir. 2018): Briefed appeal about contract dispute between Citibank and investors in residential mortgage-backed securities. The district court had granted Citibank’s motion to dismiss, which Mike briefed. See 314 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal after appellate briefing concluded.
United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016): Argued appeal on behalf of music manager convicted of murder for hire. The Second Circuit vacated the conviction, holding that the client’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Morales v. United States, 651 Fed. App’x 1 (2d Cir. 2016): Briefed habeas appeal on behalf of an incarcerated defendant challenging his sentence on constitutional grounds. The Second Circuit held that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights had been violated during his sentencing hearing.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Mylan, 586 F. App’x 747 (2d Cir. 2014): Briefed appeal about contract dispute with generic drug manufacturer. The lower court had dismissed the client’s complaint for failure to state a claim; the Second Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
First Circuit
Colony Place South v. Volvo Car USA, 121 F.4th 973 (1st Cir. 2024): Briefed and argued appeal where two car dealers alleged that Volvo’s nationwide, pre-paid maintenance plans violated Massachusetts law. The district court granted summary judgment and the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the maintenance plans were not regulated by the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Act.
Ninth Circuit
Gullen v. Facebook, Inc., 745 F. App’x 481 (9th Cir. 2019): Briefed appeal of complaint alleging that Facebook violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA) by performing facial recognition on photographs of non-users. The district court had granted Facebook’s motion for summary judgment, which Mike briefed and argued. See 2018 WL 1609337 (N.D. Cal. 2018). The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Coto Ortiz v. Barr, 812 F. App’x 615 (9th Cir. 2019): Briefed and argued appeal on behalf of client facing deportation to Honduras. The Ninth Circuit held that the client could not be deported because he was entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Smith v. Facebook, Inc., 745 F. App’x 8 (9th Cir. 2018): Briefed appeal about Facebook’s use of pixel technology to assist with targeted advertising. The district court had granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss, which Mike briefed. See 262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Facebook users consent to the collection of their data by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of use.
Seventh Circuit
Parzych v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1013 (7th Cir. 2021): Briefed and argued appeal on behalf of client facing deportation to Poland. The Second Circuit vacated the order of removal, holding that Illinois burglary is categorically broader than the federal offenses of burglary and attempted theft.
Mendoza-Sanchez v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1182 (7th Cir. 2015): Briefed appeal on behalf of client facing deportation to Mexico. The Seventh Circuit held that the agency erred in its analysis of whether the client was entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. Mike then represented the client in immigration court, which granted relief.
New York
Commerce Bank v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 141 A.D.3d 413 (1st Dep’t 2016): Briefed appeal about contract dispute between Bank of New York Mellon and investors in residential mortgage-backed securities. The First Department affirmed the trial court’s dismissal in part of the plaintiff’s claims, holding that an RMBS trustee had no duty to investigate the events at issue.
Remet Corp. The Estate of Pyne, 26 N.Y.3d 58 (N.Y. 2015): Briefed appeal in the New York Court of Appeals about the scope and meaning of contractual indemnification clauses in environmental cleanup cases. The lower court had held that the client was not entitled to indemnification for environmental cleanup costs associated with a Superfund site; in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the client was entitled to full indemnification.
In re Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 127 A.D.3d 120 (1st Dep’t 2015): Briefed appeal of $8.5 billion settlement agreement entered into by BNYM on behalf of 530 RMBS trusts. The First Department affirmed the approval of the settlement.
Florida
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Lipp, __ So. 3d __, 2024 WL 1289644 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2024): Briefed appeal of $43 million judgment against tobacco company. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court had improperly admitted hearsay testimony.
Sommers v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2024 WL 948623 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2024): Briefed appeal about the scope of Florida’s bar on successive punitive damages awards. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the client’s favor on plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Principe, 337 So. 3d 821 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2021): Briefed appeal about the scope of Florida’s fraud statute of repose. The appellate court vacated a $10.5 million judgment against the client, and remanded for entry of judgment on all claims.
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gentile, 281 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2019): Briefed appeal raising issue similar to Principe. The appellate court vacated a $7.1 million judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the client.
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2018): Briefed appeal about the application of Florida’s punitive damages statute to wrongful death actions. The appellate court held that punitive damages are not permitted in cases involving decedents whose injuries first manifested after a 1999 statutory amendment. The judgment for punitive damages was vacated and the claim was dismissed.
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Naugle, 182 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2016): Briefed appeal of $11.2 million judgment following a jury trial. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that juror misconduct had occurred.
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Green, 175 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2015): Briefed appeal of $10 million judgment following a jury trial. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by declining to apply comparative fault to the judgment.
Presentations
Appellate Advocacy: Strategic Choices in Trial Courts, Practicing Law Institute (PLI), April 2021.
Preserving Issues for Appeal, New York Law Journal, August 25, 2014 (with Scott Chesin).