Bill Markovits
  • Founding Partner

Phone

  • Complex Civil Litigation

Founding Partner Bill Markovits focuses his experience and expertise on complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on securities, antitrust, RICO, Intellectual Property, and False Claims Act cases.

Bill began his career as a trial lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in Washington, D.C. After moving to Cincinnati his antitrust focus continued, including his becoming an adjunct professor of antitrust law at the University of Cincinnati Law School.

Bill’s notable case list includes the Choice Care securities, antitrust and RICO class action, in which the jury awarded more than $100 million to a class of physicians; a fraud/RICO case on behalf of The Procter & Gamble Co., which resulted in a settlement of $165 million; an 11-year antitrust and RICO class action against Humana, including appeals that reached the United States Supreme Court and that culminated in a multimillion-dollar settlement; and a national class action against Microsoft, in which he was chosen from among dozens of plaintiffs’ attorneys to depose Bill Gates.

More recently, Bill served as a lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae Securities Litigation that settled for $153 million; a lead counsel for plaintiffs in a class action against Duke Energy that settled for $80.75 million; and lead counsel for plaintiff in Collins v. Eastman Kodak, where he successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Kodak on an antitrust tying claim. Based on the result in Collins, Bill was named a 2015 finalist in the American Antitrust Institute’s Antitrust Enforcement Awards under the category “Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice.”

DEFINING MOMENT

“As a young attorney, I saw that hard work and creativity could succeed against sometimes overwhelming numbers of opposing counsel. That has held true for more than 35 years of practice. I relish the opportunities to prove it for clients.”

MOTIVATING FACTOR

“I hate to lose. I hate for my clients to lose. The firm we have put together are all people of a similar mindset, but who possess varying talents that can be applied to ensure the best possible result for clients.”

FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF

“Some clients want the stereotypical pit-bull for a lawyer – someone who takes a constantly aggressive approach toward the opposition. While this may give the client some short-term satisfaction, it’s often counter-productive in the long term. One of the most difficult tasks I face is convincing clients that this is true.”

CREATING VICTORY

“I’ve worked with some tremendous litigators and trial lawyers over the years, and learned that there is more than one approach to success. I take those experiences, including in particular the inevitable losses that haunt every trial lawyer, and apply them to every new case. My goal is success for the client.”

  • Collins v. Eastman Kodak, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • In re Federal National Mortgage Association Securities, Derivative, and “ERISA” Litigation, United States District Court, District of Columbia
  • Ohio Employees Retirement System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage, aka Freddie Mac, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
  • Williams v. Duke Energy et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court, Central District of California
  • In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
  • In re Microsoft Corp. Litigation, United States District Court, District of Maryland
  • Procter & Gamble v. Amway Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, at Houston; United States District Court, District of Utah, at Salt Lake City
  • United States ex rel. Brooks v. Pineville Hospital, United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
  • Procter & Gamble v. Bankers’ Trust Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • United States ex rel. Watt v. Fluor Daniel, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • Forsyth v. Humana, United States District Court, District of Nevada
  • In re Choice Care Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division
  • U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in Washington, D.C., Trial Lawyer
  • District of Columbia, 1981
  • Ohio, 1983
  • U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, 1983
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit, 1991
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, 1995
  • U.S. Supreme Court, 1998
  • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2008
  • American Association for Justice
  • American Bar Association
  • American Trial Lawyers Association
  • Cincinnati Bar Association
  • District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Hamilton County Trial Lawyers Association
  • National Health Lawyers Association
  • Ohio State Bar Association, Chair of the Antitrust Section
  • Ohio Trial Lawyers Association
  • Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    • J.D. - 1981
    • Honors: cum laude
  • Washington University
    • A.B. - 1978
  • Best Lawyer in America
  • Adjunct Professor of Antitrust Law, University of Cincinnati Law School
  • Adjunct Professor, Teaching Trial Practice, University of Cincinnati College of Law
  • “Implications of Sixth Circuit Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. Decision,” American Bar Association panel discussion, December 10, 2015
  • “Defining the Relevant Market in Antitrust Litigation,” Great Lakes Antitrust Seminar, October 29, 2010
  • “Beyond Compensatory Damages – Tread, RICO and The Criminal Law Implications,” HarrisMartin’s Toyota Recall Litigation Conference, Part II, May 12, 2010
  • “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),” HarrisMartin’s Toyota Recall Litigation Conference, March 24, 2010
  • “The False Claims Act: Are Healthcare Providers at Risk?,” presentation to Robert Morris College Second Annual Health Services Conferences, Integrating Health Services: Building a Bridge to the 21st Century, Moon Township, PA, October 9, 1997
  • “The Federal False Claims Act: Are Health Care Providers at Risk?,” (Co-Speaker), Ohio Hospital Association, April, 1996
  • Antitrust Law Update, National Health Lawyers Health Law Update and Annual Meeting (Featured Speaker), San Francisco, California, 1989
  • “A Focus on Reality in Antitrust,” Federal Bar News & Journal, Nov/Dec 1992
  • “Using Civil Rico and Avoiding its Abuse,” Ohio Trial, William H. Blessing, co-author, Summer 1992
  • “Antitrust in the Health Care Field,” a chapter published in Legal Aspects of Anesthesia, 2nd ed., William H. L. Dornette, J.D., M.D., editor
W. B. Markovits Lawyer of the Year 2016
Rated By SuperLawyers 2020