Paul M. De Marco

Founding Partner

513.661.3706

F: 513.665.0219

pdemarco@msdlegal.com

VCard: Paul M. De Marco

Paul M. De Marco is one of the founding members of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco. He is an Appellate Law Specialist certified by the Ohio State Bar Association and has handled more than 100 appellate matters, including cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, six federal circuits, and five state supreme courts.
Paul’s practice also focuses on class actions and other complex litigation. During his 25 years in Cincinnati, Paul has been actively involved in successful litigation related to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fernald nuclear weapons plant, the Lucasville (Ohio) prison riot, Lloyd’s of London, defective Bjork-Shiley heart valves, Holocaust-related claims against Swiss and Austrian banks, the Bankers Trust derivative scheme, Cincinnati’s Aronoff Center, the San Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel fire, the Procter & Gamble Satanism rumor, the Hamilton County (Ohio) Morgue photograph scandal, defective childhood vaccines, claims arising from tire delamination and vehicle roll-over, racial hostility claims against one of the nation’s largest bottlers, fiduciary breach claims against the nation’s largest pharmacy benefits manager, and claims arising from the heatstroke death of NFL lineman Korey Stringer.

Paul M. De Marco

Founding Partner

Paul M. De Marco is one of the founding members of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco. He is an Appellate Law Specialist certified by the Ohio State Bar Association and has handled more than 100 appellate matters, including cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, six federal circuits, and five state supreme courts.

513.661.3706

F: 513.665.0219

pdemarco@msdlegal.com

VCard: Paul M. De Marco

Paul’s practice also focuses on class actions and other complex litigation. During his 25 years in Cincinnati, Paul has been actively involved in successful litigation related to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fernald nuclear weapons plant, the Lucasville (Ohio) prison riot, Lloyd’s of London, defective Bjork-Shiley heart valves, Holocaust-related claims against Swiss and Austrian banks, the Bankers Trust derivative scheme, Cincinnati’s Aronoff Center, the San Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel fire, the Procter & Gamble Satanism rumor, the Hamilton County (Ohio) Morgue photograph scandal, defective childhood vaccines, claims arising from tire delamination and vehicle roll-over, racial hostility claims against one of the nation’s largest bottlers, fiduciary breach claims against the nation’s largest pharmacy benefits manager, and claims arising from the heatstroke death of NFL lineman Korey Stringer.

MOTIVATING FACTOR

I’ve always loved crafting legal arguments and picking apart others’ arguments. MSD is great fit for me because it allows me to work on the research, writing, oral advocacy, and strategic aspects of a wide variety of complex cases with committed people who share my appreciation for the importance of paying attention to every detail, anticipating your opponents’ moves, and leaving no stone unturned in serving our clients.”

CREATING VICTORY

“Figuring out the law governing a case is like a mystery waiting to be solved. It calls upon all of a lawyer’s analytical skills and investigative instincts. I’ve won arguments because I was obsessed with reading and re-reading the language of a contract, statute, or case and noticed a word, phrase, sentence, or even a punctuation mark that no one else seemed to notice and was able to make something of it. I’m fortunate to work among people who share this obsession.”

I’ve won arguments because I was obsessed with reading and re-reading the language of a contract, statute, or case and noticed a word, phrase, sentence, or even a punctuation mark that no one else seemed to notice and was able to make something of it.”

"I’ve won arguments because I was obsessed with reading and re-reading the language of a contract, statute, or case and noticed a word, phrase, sentence, or even a punctuation mark that no one else seemed to notice and was able to make something of it.”

EDUCATION

College of Wooster (B.A., 1981), Phi Beta Kappa
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (J.D. with distinction, 1983), Order of the Coif
University of Cambridge (1985)

COURT ADMISSIONS

•Ohio
•California
•Supreme Court of the United States
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
•U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
•U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
•U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
•U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
•U.S. District Court, Central District of California
•U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
•U.S. Court of Federal Claims

AFFILIATIONS & ACTIVITIES

  • Since 1994, Paul has worked to promote professional responsibility among lawyers, serving first as a member and eventually the chair of the Cincinnati Bar Association Certified Grievance Committee, and later as a member and eventually the chair of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio, now called the Board of Professional Conduct.
  • Paul also is a member of many legal organizations, including the Federal Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association, Cincinnati Bar Association, American Bar Association, ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the Cincinnati Bar Association’s Court of Appeals Committee.
  • Paul was one of the founders of the Collaborative Law Center in Cincinnati, a member of Cincinnati’s Citizens Police Review Panel (1999-2002), and a member of Cincinnati CAN and its Police and Community Subcommittee following the city’s 2001 riots.
  • Paul has served on the boards of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center and the Mercantile Library (including as its President) and on the advisory committees of the Fernald Community Cohort and the Fernald Workers’ Medical Monitoring Program.

SIGNIFICANT CASES

  • Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 129 S.Ct. 1896 (2009): In a case involving allegations of a fraudulent tax shelter and accounting and legal malpractice, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the issue of the rights of non-parties to arbitration clauses to enforce them against parties, which had divided the circuits.
  • Williams v. Duke Energy International, Inc., 681 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2012): In a case brought as a class action by a utility’s ratepayers for selective payment of illegal rebates to certain ratepayers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of the excluded ratepayers’ claims that the utility violated the RICO statute, the Robinson-Patman Act, and the state corrupt practices act.
  • State of Ohio ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 113 Ohio St.3d 410, 865 N.E.2d 1289 (2007): The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the appellate court’s issuance of the extremely rare writ of procedendo commanding the trial judge to proceed with a trial on claims he mistakenly believed the previous jury had resolved.
  • Chesher v. Neyer, 477 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2007): The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of qualified immunity defenses raised by the Hamilton County (Ohio) coroner, his chief deputy, the coroner’s administrative aide, a staff pathologist, and a pathology fellow in connection with the Hamilton County Morgue photo scandal.
  • State of Ohio ex rel. CNG Fin’l Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149, 855 N.E.2d 473 (2006): The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s refusal to issue a writ of procedendo commanding the trial judge to halt injunctive proceedings and decide an arbitration issue.
  • Smith v. North American Stainless, L.P., 158 Fed.Appx. 699 (6th Cir. 2006): Rejecting a steel manufacturer’s “up-the-ladder” immunity defense, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a wrongful claim brought by the widow and estate of a steel worker killed on the job.
  • Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005): The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Procter & Gamble’s Lanham Act claims, paving the way for a $19.25 million jury verdict in its favor.
  • Roetenberger v. Christ Hospital, 163 Ohio App.3d 555, 839 N.E.2d 441 (2005): In this medical malpractice action for wrongful death, the Ohio court of appeals reversed the jury verdict in the physician’s favor due to improper arguments by his attorney and instructional error by the trial court.
  • City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416, 768 N.E.2d 1136 (2002): In this landmark decision on public nuisance law, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a public nuisance action could be maintained for injuries caused by a product—in this case, guns—if the design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of the product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.
  • Norgard v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 165, 766 N.E.2d 977 (2002): In an employee’s intentional tort action alleging that his employer subjected him to long-term beryllium exposure, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a cause of action for an employer intentional tort accrues when the employee discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the workplace injury and—here’s the ground-breaking part of the holding—the wrongful conduct of the employer.
  • Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (2002): In overturning the dismissal of a suit against the state fire marshal for negligently inspecting a fireworks store that caught fire killing nine people, the Supreme Court of Ohio held for the first time that the common-law public-duty rule cannot be applied in cases against the state in the Ohio Court of Claims.
0-best-law-firm-2007-badge
Attorneys at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC. have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America.
In recognition of their achievements, attorneys at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC. have received multiple designations as “Super Lawyers” by Law & Politics magazine.
Attorneys at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC. have annually received the highest rating by Martindale-Hubbell for an attorney, AV Preeminent.