logo

Back

Stephen A. Miller

Vice Chair, Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations

: Philadelphia
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street
Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
P: (215) 665-4736
TF: (800) 523-2900
F: (215) 665-2013

Stephen A. Miller

Recent Publication:
Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations [Law360]
Jeffrey Monhait and Stephen Miller discuss the new collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association and review the disciplinary powers of both the teams and the league in their Law360 article, "Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations."
More

Stephen A. Miller is vice chair of the Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations Group. Stephen draws on his notable litigation experience to assist companies and individuals facing potential criminal exposure. Prior to joining the firm in September 2010, Stephen served as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States, practiced appellate law in Chicago, and worked for nine years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As a prosecutor, he conducted dozens of high-profile investigations and trials.

Stephen’s practice focuses primarily on helping companies and individuals navigate government investigations, implement compliance programs, and defend against criminal charges. He has represented a diverse range of clients, including large health care service providers, financial institutions, transportation companies, manufacturers, software makers, universities, college and professional athletes, and corporate directors and executives.

He has particular experience in the areas of international anti-corruption laws and export controls. Stephen designs anti-bribery and export-control compliance programs for clients, and counsels clients about investigations into potential violations of those laws. As a federal prosecutor, Stephen conducted and supervised far-reaching investigations into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and federal export regulations. Among other successes, Stephen investigated and prosecuted individuals who exported sensitive technology to Iran in violation of export controls, uncovered and prosecuted widespread fraud in the United Nations’s Oil-for-Food Program, and thwarted efforts by Hezbollah to obtain thousands of heat-seeking missiles and machine guns. He received the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award in 2008.

In addition to his trial and investigative credentials, Stephen has exceptional abilities as an appellate lawyer. After law school, he served as a law clerk for both the Honorable Joel M. Flaum of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States. As a practicing attorney, Stephen has briefed and argued appeals before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and Federal Circuits, as well as briefed matters in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Finally, due to Stephen’s unique experience spearheading numerous jury trials, he occasionally assists with major civil litigation. He has represented corporate clients and individuals in civil lawsuits involving a diverse array of claims, including False Claims Act violations, investment agreement violations, federal forfeiture proceedings, and constitutional challenges to proposed government policies.

Stephen graduated summa cum laude from both Princeton University and Northwestern University School of Law. At Princeton, he majored in Near Eastern studies. Stephen attended Northwestern on a full-tuition scholarship and graduated first in his class while serving on the editorial board of the Northwestern Law Review.

Experience

Internal Investigations

Conducted internal investigation for publicly traded company regarding accounting practices at one of its subsidiaries.
Conducted internal investigation for a political action committee relating to disbursements by its representatives.
Conducted internal investigation for large health-care services provider into potential Stark Act violations.
Conducted internal investigation for manufacturing company into allegations of theft and embezzlement; discovered perpetrator, obtained full confession, and turned over results of investigation to law enforcement officials, who obtained a guilty plea from the perpetrator.
Conducted internal investigation for a publicly traded bank into allegations of mismanagement.
Conducted internal investigation for national services company regarding billing practices and mismanagement of company's resources by local agents.
Conducted internal investigation for publicly traded company regarding benefits provided to federal government officials.
Conducted internal investigation for agricultural company into fraud by foreign partner and used that investigation to obtain a $9 million reimbursement from the client's insurance company.
Conducted internal investigation for The Wine Advocate, a pre-eminent publisher of wine ratings and criticism, into allegations of impropriety by former associates.

Criminal Defense

Represented medical practice in self-reporting Stark Act violations to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; negotiated fine of less-than-1% of affected billings and no criminal charges or civil actions filed against client.
Represented former CEO of publicly traded health-care company at sentencing; obtained for client a sentence of 36 months imprisonment where Court found the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range was 121-151 months imprisonment.
Represented executive of shipping company in connection with federal investigation of possible procurement fraud; no charges filed against client.
Represented individual in federal prosecution of interstate gambling, tax fraud, and money laundering; no charges filed against client.
Represented Internet poker website in federal prosecution of interstate gambling and money laundering; no criminal charges filed against client.
Represented several executives of two international banks in connection with federal investigations of possible violations of U.S. Treasury sanctions and State of New York law; no charges filed against any clients.
Represented attorney and law firm in connection with criminal and civil tax inquiries; no criminal or civil charges filed against clients.
Represented transportation company in criminal investigation relating to importation of parts from Europe; no charges filed against client and obtained a declination letter from U.S. Attorney’s office.
Represented witness in state prosecutions relating to Penn State sexual abuse scandals; no charges filed against client.
Represented executive of payment processing company who pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business servicing Internet gambling businesses; obtained for client a sentence of 36 months imprisonment where Court found that the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range was 108-135 months imprisonment.
Represented individual in federal prosecution for health-care fraud in Southern District of Texas; trial scheduled for March 2013.
Represented two different, former directors of banks in FDIC investigations into boards’ oversight of loan practices; no criminal charges or civil lawsuits filed against either client.
Represented health-care system in SEC investigation relating to municipal bonds issued by the system; no criminal charges or civil enforcement actions filed against client.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act & Export Controls

Designed anti-bribery compliance program — including training for key employees — for prominent fitness company preparing to market its exercise videos and accessories internationally.
Counseled international energy company on compliance strategies relating to use of consultants in South America, Russia, and China, as well as trained those consultants directly on compliance with international anti-corruption laws.
Counseled former executive of publicly traded company in internal investigation relating to potential FCPA violations in Latin America.
Represented international energy company in connection with bribery and fraud inquiry in United Kingdom.
Counseled publicly traded software company about application of U.S. trade sanctions and export-control laws on proposed international transactions, including advice on due diligence of potential partners and licensees.
Counseled manufacturing company on application of Arms Export Control Act to its international sales; successfully obtained ruling that client did not need to register with and obtain licenses for all sales from Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
Counseled import-export company in federal investigation of possible violation of export controls.

Civil Litigation

Represented UPMC in trial and appellate litigation challenging Pennsylvania Attorney General’s enforcement of Consent Decree.
Represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in convincing federal and state courts to reject efforts by the City of Harrisburg to declare bankruptcy.
Represented software company in state supreme court relating to efforts to enforce non-solicitation agreement.
Represented corporate executive in civil lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act regarding health-care services company’s alleged billing practices and violations of Anti-Kickback Statute.
Represented investment management company in federal civil action to recover millions of dollars owed as a result of material defaults in investment agreement.
Represented Internet poker website in federal civil forfeiture proceedings.
Represented consultant in connection with lawsuit by investors to recover damages associated with an unsuccessful investment.
Represented investors in federal civil action against auditors alleging complicity in fraud by Adelphia Communications, which led to the loss of millions of the investors’ dollars.
Represented investor in federal civil action against executive of prominent hedge fund based on the executive’s failure to honor agreement regarding distribution of millions of dollars of profits.
Counseled mining company on constitutional challenges to proposed tax policies that might have bankrupted the company;
Represented company in negotiating favorable resolution of civil claims against major airline relating to failure to pay fair price for services provided at several airports.
Worked with Cozen team representing a coalition of insurance companies in a federal civil action against The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, various Saudi charities, and other alleged supporters of Al Qaeda for over two billion dollars of damages resulting from property and casualty payments occasioned by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Other

Represented supplier of hundreds of millions of dollars of goods to U.S. military bases in Afghanistan in debarment proceedings based on alleged fraud; successfully convinced U.S. Army to reject proposed debarment.
Represented NCAA football player from BCS Conference in appeal of student-athlete’s eligibility.
Conducted audit of prominent university’s interactions with minors and recommended new, multi-disciplinary policies and procedures to govern those interactions to minimize risks of abuse, as well as developed engaging training materials to teach personnel about mandatory reporting obligations and how to spot and prevent child abuse.
Represented witness in testimony before the federal House Committee on Ethics.

News

NHL exec Bill Daly visits Philly to talk 2018 Olympics and expansion to Las Vegas, Quebec City and Seattle

February 10, 2017

National Hockey League deputy commissioner Bill Daly came to Philadelphia on Thursday to be a keynote speaker at a sports business conference organized by local law firm Cozen O'Connor and Penn's Wharton business school.

Stephen Miller Discusses the Bharara Insider Trading Crackdown

June 03, 2016

Stephen Miller, vice chair of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations practice, discusses the Bharara insider-trading crackdown on Bloomberg.com.

Stephen Miller recalls his time as a U.S. Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia

February 17, 2016

Stephen Miller, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998 and 1999, discusses his time with the Justice and the influence he had as a judge.

17 Cozen O'Connor Attorneys Awarded Pro Bono Service Awards by First Judicial District of PA

October 29, 2015

The judges of the First Judicial Distrct of PA will present pro bono service awards to 17 Cozen O'Connor attorneys who have handled pro bono matters this year in FJD courts.

Stephen Miller Discusses the Investigation into Academic Fraud at UNC-Chapel Hill in Newsobserver.com

March 04, 2014

In an article titled “Former UNC African studies manager won't be charged, but will cooperate with probe,” Stephen Miller (Commercial Litigation, Philadelphia) discusses the recent investigation into UNC-Chapel Hill academics. Previous noncriminal investigations had found Deborah Crowder, a retired manager of the African and Afro-American studies department at UNC, was at the center of the creation of lecture-style classes frequented by athletes that never met and that typically provided high grades for those who turned in a term-paper at the end of the semester. But, on Tuesday, March 4, Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall said that Crowder, who retired in 2009, would not be charged with any crime, but is expected to cooperate with a new investigation into the academic fraud, one that UNC leaders say will seek to find out how it happened and why.

Stephen Miller Discusses SAC Capital Advisors in Bloomberg

November 05, 2013

In an article titled “SAC Agrees to Plead Guilty to End Insider Trading Case,” Stephen Miller, of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, discusses SAC Capital Advisors LP, the hedge fund accused of fostering a culture of rampant insider trading. SAC has recently agreed to plead guilty to securities fraud and wire fraud, pay a record $1.8 billion and shutter its investment advisory business.

Stephen Miller Discusses NCAA Enforcement Actions in USA Today

October 08, 2013

In an article titled “Alabama case spotlights Emmert, Saban friendship,” Stephen Miller, of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, discusses NCAA enforcement actions as they relate to recent allegations about an Alabama football player accepting impermissible benefits while at the school. Miller states, “The NCAA has a major credibility problem when it comes to enforcement actions, and that's especially so under Mark Emmert because it seems Emmert picks and chooses when he wants to get involved."

Stephen Miller Discusses Madoff’s Ex-Worker Trial in Bloomberg

October 05, 2013

In an article titled “Madoff Ex-Worker Trial to Shine New Light on Ponzi Scheme,” Stephen Miller, of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, discusses the criminal trial of Bernard Madoff’s ex-employees, which will investigate further into their alleged roles in carrying out the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme. Miller states, “People have always wondered what was known inside Madoff’s operation and this trial will be our first window into that world.”

Stephen Miller Discusses FCPA Enforcement in Of Counsel

June 18, 2013

In an article titled, "Anti-Corruption as a Cottage Industry: Rise in FCPA Enforcement Generates Heavy Workloads for Outside Counsel," Stephen Miller of the firm's Commercial Litigation Department discusses the benefits of using lawyers with experience in government when seeking counsel on FCPA-related matters.

Stephen Miller Discusses the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Inside Counsel

May 22, 2013

In an article titled, “The impact and continuing evolution of the FCPA,” Stephen Miller, a member in the firm’s Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations practice, discusses the recent uptick in the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the benefits of self-reporting any potential violations.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Genesis Healthcare Corporation

April 17, 2013

In Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Laura Symczyk, the Court ruled that the case against the nursing and rehabilitation provider should be dismissed because its offer to Symczyk of the unpaid wages to which she alleged she was entitled effectively ended her stake in the case. The 5-4 decision, split along the court's ideological fault lines, will likely have limited practical applicability but could spark further debate about whether the justices treat collective actions brought under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) differently from traditional class actions.

Stephen Miller Quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek

December 19, 2012

In an article titled, “SAC Indictment Deadline May Show U.S. Hand on Cohen Deal,” Stephen Miller, a former federal prosecutor, discussed the government’s approach to securing an indictment against a former SAC Capital Advisors LP portfolio manager accused of insider trading.

Stephen Miller’s Representation of Genesis Healthcare Corporation Mentioned in Law 360

December 03, 2012

Genesis Healthcare Corporation urged the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to allow wage-and-hour collective actions to proceed after the named plaintiff has been offered full relief, contending that such an offer moots the case.

Stephen Miller Quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek

June 30, 2012

Stephen Miller, a member in Cozen O’Connor’s Criminal Defense and Government Investigations Group, discussed the frustration of Bernard Madoff’s victims regarding the lack of information about the workings of the decades-long Ponzi scheme in an article titled, ''Peter Madoff Admts Aiding Brother’s Ponzi Scheme.''

Stephen Miller quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek

September 21, 2011

Stephen Miller was quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek regarding the sentencing of Zvi Goffer, the former Galleon trader, and Winifred Jiau, a consultant for Primary Global Research LLC, who were convicted in June in separate trials in federal court in Manhattan as part of a U.S. crackdown on insider trading. Stephen commented, ''The U.S. attorney is going to keep this case in the public eye for a week. That should create the desired deterrent effect.''

Stephen Miller Quoted in Multiple Publications

May 12, 2011

Stephen Miller, a member in the Criminal Defense and Government Investigations Practice Group, was quoted by multiple news agencies, including the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, and Reuters. Mr. Miller commented on recent insider-trading cases involving Raj Rajaratnam and three traders. Mr. Miller describes how wire tapping was used in the case and how it has been effective.

Stephen Miller Quoted in Bloomberg News

March 02, 2011

Stephen Miller, a member in the Criminal Defense and Government Investigations Practice Group, was quoted in a Bloomberg News article. The article addressed Danielle Chiesi, former consultant for New Castle Funds LLC, pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud charges. Mr. Miller commented on how this affects accused co-conspirator Raj Rajaratnam, noting, ''The plea is bad for Rajaratnam any way you look at it. If she's cooperating, that’s really bad for him. If not, the plea allows the government to focus all its guns [on Rajaratnam].''

Dow Jones Newswires Talks to Stephen A. Miller About Williamson v. Mazda

February 24, 2011

Stephen A. Miller, member in the firm's Commercial Litigation Practice Group, discussed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dow Jones Newswires article ''2nd Update: US Supreme Court Clears Way for Seat Belt Lawsuits.'' The article addresses the recent decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America that federal vehicle safety regulations do not protect car manufacturers from lawsuits involving lap-only seat belts. Stephen is quoted as saying, ''the ruling demonstrates why it is too simplistic to think of the Roberts Court as always pro-business.''

Cozen O’Connor Adds Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Supreme Court Clerk Stephen A. Miller

September 27, 2010

Cozen O’Connor Adds Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Supreme Court Clerk Stephen A. Miller

Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations [Law360]

June 09, 2017

Jeffrey Monhait and Stephen Miller discuss the new collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association and review the disciplinary powers of both the teams and the league in their Law360 article, "Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations."

Court Grapples With Internet Restrictions on Registered Sex Offenders [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 04, 2017

Stephen Miller, vice chair of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations practice, and William Lesser, of the Commercial Litigation department, discuss internet restrictions on registered sex offenders in The Legal Intelligencer.

U.S. Supreme Court Explores Venue in Patent Cases [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 04, 2017

Stephen Miller and Matthew Coin, both of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations practice, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court in The Legal Intelligencer.

Supreme Court Confronts Racial Bias in Jury Deliberations [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 11, 2017

Stephen A. Miller and Kathryn Young Galla discuss a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is grappling with the issue of racial bias in the decision-making of a criminal trial jury.

High Court Considers When a Stock Tip Becomes Insider Trading [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 09, 2016

Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense and Internal Investigations practice, and Nicholas Karwacki, of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation department, discuss insider trading in The Legal Intelligencer.

Scope of First Amendment Protection of Public Employees [Legal Intelligencer]

March 10, 2016

Stephen Miller and Nicholas Karwacki discuss the scope of the First Amendment protection of public employees in the Legal Intelligencer.

US Supreme Court to Consider RICO's International Reach [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 30, 2016

Stephen Miller and Stephen Kempa co-wrote this article discussing the extraterritorial application of U.S. law in the contect of RICO, which U.S. Supreme Court will return to this term.

US Supreme Court Revisits Class-Action Suits in 'Campbell-Ewald' [Legal Intelligencer]

November 20, 2015

Stephen Miller and Nicholas Karwacki discuss the US Supreme Court revisiting class-action suits in 'Campbell Ewald'

US Supreme Court Explores Standing Doctrine in ‘Spokeo’ [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 12, 2015

Stephen Miller and Leigh Ann Benson discuss Spokeo v. Robins, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit raising the question whether Congress may create an “injury-in-fact” simply from the violation of a federal statute.

Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term in 2015 [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 08, 2015

Stephen Miller discusses some of the cases that will occupy the Supreme Court justices’ attention for the next few months.

Understanding the DOJ's Airlines Antitrust Investigation [Corporate Counsel]

August 03, 2015

Barry Boss, Stephen Miller, and Rebecca Brodey discuss the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s latest investigation – airline capacity restrictions.

In Same-Sex Marriage Case, Justices Face Complex Social, Legal Issues [The Legal Intelligencer]

June 10, 2015

Stephen Miller and Arthur Fritzinger discuss Obergefell v. Hodges, which the Supreme Court will decide later this month.

Supreme Court Weighs Hotel Owners’ Right to ‘Tranquility’ [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 14, 2015

Stephen Miller and Diana Lin discuss the Supreme Court’s examination of a facial Fourth Amendment challenge to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.49, which authorized law enforcement officers to routinely inspect hotel guest registers without exigent circumstances, probable cause, or judicial supervision.

US Supreme Court Considers Religious Accommodations [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 09, 2015

In an article titled “US Supreme Court Considers Religious Accommodations,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, discusses an important case regarding employers' obligations to accommodate employees' religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Must the employer have actual knowledge that the applicant or employee requires a religious accommodation, or does a hunch suffice? And must that knowledge come from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee, or can it come from some other source? The justices will try to answer these questions in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores.

US Supreme Court Confronts Testimony in Child Abuse Cases [The Legal Intelligencer]

March 12, 2015

In an article titled “US Supreme Court Confronts Testimony in Child Abuse Cases,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Kathryn Young, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss how child abuse cases are difficult to prosecute because there are often few witnesses and those witnesses are often very young. The question whether those young witnesses must testify about their abuse in court, therefore, has great practical and constitutional importance.

Justices Eye Hierarchy of Protected Speech in Street Sign Case [The Legal Intelligencer]

February 12, 2015

In an article titled ''Justices Eye Hierarchy of Protected Speech in Street Sign Case,'' Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Leigh Ann Benson, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss Reed v. Town of Gilbert, in which the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to overhaul its First Amendment jurisprudence. The Town of Gilbert's sign ordinance was challenged by Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed. Good News is a relatively small congregation in Gilbert that meets weekly for fellowship and worship. The church views its signs as ideological while the town considers them to be directional – a distinction that has significant practical effects. Although it seems likely Gilbert's ordinance will be struck down, the more interesting question is whether five Justices will unite around a far-reaching opinion that revamps the court's First Amendment jurisprudence.

U.S. Supreme Court Analyzes Pregnancy Discrimination [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 15, 2015

In an article titled “U.S. Supreme Court Analyzes Pregnancy Discrimination,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Jessica Hurst, an associate in the Labor & Employment Department, discuss Young v. United Parcel Services, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the appropriate standard to apply in determining whether an employer has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. More specifically, the court will determine under what circumstances pregnant employees are entitled to work accommodations that are provided to their non-pregnant coworkers.

Social Media Posts Take Center Stage at U.S. Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

December 29, 2014

In an article titled “Social Media Posts Take Center Stage at U.S. Supreme Court,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Alexa Sebia, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss United States v. Elonis, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will attempt to define when comments made on social media platforms cross the line from protected free speech to criminal activity. The case arose in our own Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Anthony Elonis posted violent rap lyrics and graphic messages on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers and an FBI agent. The communications were objectively threatening, but the relevant question is whether that speech is protected if the government cannot prove that the speaker intended to act on the threat.

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Federal Procedure Questions [The Legal Intelligencer]

December 04, 2014

In an article titled “U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Federal Procedure Questions,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Stephen Kempa, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss several U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with important issues in the area of federal practice and procedure.

Supreme Court Takes on Knowledge Standard in Securities Suits [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 09, 2014

In an article titled “Supreme Court Takes on Knowledge Standard in Securities Suits,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Kaitlin DiNapoli, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, in which shareholders invoked the securities laws to sue Omnicare for proclaiming in its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registration statement that its contracts with drug companies were lawful. This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will explore the pleading standard necessary to proceed on such a securities claim: May the plaintiffs merely allege that such a statement was objectively wrong, or must the plaintiffs also allege that the speaker did not believe that the statement was true?

Supreme Court Addresses Treatment of Incriminating Evidence [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 06, 2014

In an article titled “Supreme Court Addresses Treatment of Incriminating Evidence,” Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Michael O’Donnell, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss two cases that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the coming months relating to incriminating evidence – one concerns finding it, and the other concerns destroying it.

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Restitution Orders [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 02, 2014

In an article titled ''U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Restitution Orders,'' Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Kaitlin DiNapoli, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss Paroline v. United States, in which the Court crafted a new causation standard for awards of restitution following federal criminal convictions.

Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court's October Term in 2014 [The Legal Intelligencer]

September 04, 2014

In an article titled ''Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term in 2014,'' Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, discusses some of the highlights of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for the upcoming term.

Preserving Privilege in Internal Investigations [Today's General Counsel]

August 15, 2014

In an article published in Today's General Counsel, Stephen Miller, a member of the Commercial Litigation Department, and Brian Kint, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, discuss the dispute involving the privileged status of documents created during internal code of business conduct (COBC) investigations conducted by Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. The case serves as a reminder that reasonable jurists can evaluate privilege issues differently and gives examples of how companies can strengthen any assertion of privilege over internal investigation materials.

U.S. Supreme Court Doubles Down on Fair Labor Standards Act [The Legal Intelligencer]

July 03, 2014

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Stephen Miller and Kaitlin DiNapoli, attorneys in Cozen O’Connor’s Litigation Department, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s exploration of two Fair Labor Standards Act cases that have far-reaching consequences for employers, since back pay, overtime and double damages for employees are on the line. The cases involve the compensability of certain activities—donning and doffing protective gear in the case decided in January and going through a security screen in the new case—that employees must complete to perform their jobs, but are not necessarily the crux of the jobs themselves.

Justices Consider First Amendment Challenges at Oral Arguments [The Legal Intelligencer]

June 05, 2014

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Stephen Miller and Jordan Fox, members of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation Department, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's focus on the First Amendment this term. The court heard oral arguments in April in two such cases—one concerning the protections afforded a public employee while testifying under subpoena, and one concerning the ability of individuals to challenge speech-restrictive campaign laws. Both of these cases present the court with the difficult task of applying longstanding doctrine to new and perplexing problems.

Court Considers Warrantless Searches of Mobile Phones [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 01, 2014

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations Departments, and Kristy Miller, an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department, discuss the difficult task of reconciling traditional notions of privacy with evolving species of technology as it relates to two recent cases that address what level of privacy one can expect in data stored on a cellphone.

The U.S. Supreme Court Tackles Questions of Criminal Intent [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 03, 2014

In an article titled “U.S. Supreme Court Tackles Questions of Criminal Intent,” Stephen Miller and Jordan Fox, members of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation Department, discuss the element of criminal intent. “Guilty knowledge” is often the hardest element for the government to prove in a criminal prosecution. For that reason, criminal practitioners pay special attention to changes in the law that impacts the evidence admissible on the score. The U.S. Supreme Court decided one such case during this term and was set to hear oral argument in another this week.

Private Enforcement of Product-Labeling Violations [The Legal Intelligencer]

March 06, 2014

In an article titled "Private Enforcement of Product Labeling Violations," Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation Department, and David Albert, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Intellectual Property Department, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration in April whether a private litigant can sue a company for violating federal restrictions on labeling food and beverage products.

Copyright Act's Application to Internet Television Broadcasts [The American Lawyer]

February 27, 2014

In an article titled "Copyright Act's Application to Internet Television Broadcasts," Stephen Miller, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation Department, and Thomas Leonard, an associate in the firm's Litigation Department, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether Aereo's system of transmitting television programs over the Internet violates the Copyright Act. The ruling could have a seismic impact on the television industry and how Americans view television shows.

U.S. Supreme Court to Scrutinize Securities Class Actions [The Legal Intelligencer]

February 06, 2014

In two sets of cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide questions that could significantly alter securities litigation on behalf of large groups of investors under both federal and state law.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 3) [InsideCounsel]

January 22, 2014

OFAC does not deal only with cooperating entities, of course. On one hand, non-cooperating entities certainly run a risk that OFAC will refer their violations to criminal authorities. But even a non-cooperator can receive benefits, even grudgingly, under OFAC’s administrative-penalty regime — especially compared to companies that become targets of criminal prosecution and the severe penalties attendant to that process. That comparison between administrative and criminal punishments of non-cooperating entities, as discussed infra, may yield useful, persuasive data to criminal defense lawyers representing an entity under criminal investigation.

Supreme Court Considers Deference to Other Judicial Proceedings [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 02, 2014

In two cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the extent to which federal courts should defer to the decisions of other tribunals. Its decisions will have a substantial effect on the role of the federal courts in relation to state proceedings and in reviewing the decisions of international arbitration panels.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 2) [InsideCounsel]

December 23, 2013

As the formulas from Part 1 demonstrate, OFAC’s regulations strongly incentivize cooperation to reduce a violator’s penalty. The next section examines a few recent enforcement actions in which companies have taken advantage of these regulatory formulas to minimize penalties resulting from violations.

The Zombie Rises Again in Religion-State Separation Case [The Legal Intelligencer]

December 12, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is rarely subtle when angry. And he has often been angry when evaluating the tests employed by his colleagues to resolve First Amendment religion cases. In particular, in a 1992 concurring opinion, he derided a multifactor test for evaluating the proper separation of religion and state as "some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried … frightening the little children and school attorneys" across the country.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 1) [InsideCounsel]

November 20, 2013

Recent settlements in civil enforcement proceedings brought by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) suggest that cover-ups, not crimes, may invite the stiffest penalties. Frequently, companies that cooperate with OFAC investigations, admit wrongdoing and take remedial actions to prevent future violations escape the enforcement process with mild punishments. Indeed, even companies that eventually cooperate after some initial resistance fare well in OFAC’s administrative enforcement process and often avoid criminal penalties altogether — penalties that, aside from the reputational damage, carry much more severe consequences, including prison time for individuals and massive financial impact.

Justices Considering Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parties [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 14, 2013

The jurisdiction cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court are rarely headline-grabbing. Nonetheless, those cases exert a significant effect on the civil litigation that fills the nation's dockets. This fall, the justices are considering two interesting cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that may limit the ability of federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over parties in foreign districts.

Justices to Probe Limits of Powers of Government Branches [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 10, 2013

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide three cases posing difficult questions about the limits of the powers of each of the three branches of the federal government.

Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court's October Term [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 03, 2013

After last term’s fireworks, casual observers of the U.S. Supreme Court may find it hard to believe that there remains anything left for the Supreme Court to decide. Somehow, though, the justices will find a few things to fill their days. And a preview of the cases slated for review (so far) reveals that those “things” promise to be very interesting.

Love Conquers All [Today's General Counsel]

September 25, 2013

What could be better than new love, except perhaps secret new love? Few in the throes of budding romance are willing to acknowledge the possibility that what is sweet now might sour later, let alone eventuate in a lawsuit. But when the romance in question is between co-workers, and especially where there is a supervisory relationship involved, the company hosting their courtship should take protective measures once the relationship comes to light. Otherwise, what began as an innocent (or not-so-innocent) dalliance could end in a nasty and costly lawsuit.

Supreme Court Revisits Pre-emption Pertaining to Pharmaceuticals [The Legal Intelligencer]

June 13, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court is presently considering whether federal law pre-empts state design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical products. Just two years ago, the court insulated generic-drug manufacturers from state-law failure-to-warn claims. It seems doubtful that any of the justices in that majority will treat this case differently, and, thus, generic drugmakers may soon enjoy a new immunity.

Patent Law and Uneasy Compromises at the U.S. Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 09, 2013

At oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Supreme Court recently grappled with the question of whether human genes are patentable. Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to capture the justices' sentiment in the lively argument session: "The patent law is filled with uneasy compromises." The compromises that the justices choose will affect the future work of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and shape the path of genetic research in the future.

Supreme Court Willing to Reconsider Deference to Administrative Agencies [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 24, 2013

Most of the federal government's authority is exercised, on a day-to-day basis, through its administrative agencies. Central to the efficiency of those agencies — such as it is — is the judiciary's substantial deference to agency decision-making. Without that deference, people and corporations would often have an incentive to try to impair (or at least delay) agencies' actions through court challenges.

Re-examining Funding and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine [The Legal Intelligencer]

March 14, 2013

Congress funds a variety of causes to the exclusion of others. That is permissible and necessary. Congress cannot, however, condition its spending on the abandonment of recipients' constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court Revisits the Takings Clause [The Legal Intelligencer]

February 07, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari this term on two issues concerning the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The justices heard oral arguments January 15 on a case focused on the conditions that a land-use agency may attach when issuing a development permit.

Justices Take on Thorny Intellectual Property Cases [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 10, 2013

In the most recent Supreme Court term, justices heard oral arguments and granted certiorari on several cutting-edge questions of intellectual property law.

Winter 2013 [Business Law Observer]

January 01, 2013

Supreme Court Considers Fourth Amendment Challenges [The Legal Intelligencer]

December 19, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a number of interesting Fourth Amendment cases. Of particular interest is a case questioning police use of drug-sniffing dogs to detect contraband in a defendant's home, and another case questioning whether police may detain an individual who has left a premises about to be searched pursuant to a valid warrant.

The Question Is Moot: Considering the Limits of Judicial Authority [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 27, 2012

In Jesse Jackson's famous Saturday Night Live sketch, every question was moot. Luckily for litigants, our courts take a more forgiving view. This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider questions relating to justiciability in a diverse array of cases touching upon national security, trademark law, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Hague Convention. Each case turns on whether there is a "case" or "controversy," as required by Article III of the Constitution.

Slow Pace of NCAA Investigations Prejudices Student-Athletes [Corporate Compliance Insights]

October 29, 2012

The NCAA is a financial juggernaut. Each year, the organization generates nearly a billion dollars of revenue premised largely on its perceived status as shepherd of the amateur ideal. Indeed, the NCAA takes great pains to cultivate that image by, among other things, reminding us that most student-athletes “go pro in something other than sports.”

The NCAA Needs to Let Someone Else Enforce Its Rules [The Atlantic]

October 23, 2012

A lawyer's take on how to fix the National College Athletics Association's broken, capricious system for investigating and punishing schools and student-athletes accused of impropriety

Doubling Down on Dukes: Expanding Upon 'Rigorous' Review [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 23, 2012

Two terms ago, in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that class actions should be the "exception," not the rule, in federal litigation. In Dukes, the court held that a class of 1.5 million current and former employees of Wal-Mart failed to satisfy the "commonality" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and, therefore, could not bring a class action asserting their employment discrimination claims under Title VII.

Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court's Upcoming Term [The Legal Intelligencer]

September 26, 2012

Preview of the U.S. Supreme Court's Upcoming Term - The Legal Intelligencer - The Supreme Court will continue its recent trend of answering important questions in intellectual property litigation.

Preview of the Roger Clemens Trial: The Rocket Faces a Challenging Lineup [From the Sidebar]

April 16, 2012

In the 2000 World/Subway Series, Roger Clemens hurled a broken bat at Mike Piazza. In hindsight, we can ask: Was it “roid rage”? Clemens now finds himself on trial this week in a real Washington D.C. courtroom concerning his use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).

Justices Set to Revisit Affirmative Action for Universities [The Legal Intelligencer]

March 20, 2012

Justices Set to Revisit Affirmative Action for Universities - The Legal Intelligencer -

The 'Eyes' Have It at the U.S. Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 24, 2012

The 'Eyes' Have It at the U.S. Supreme Court - The Legal Intelligencer -

Blockbusters Loom as Supreme Court Term Begins [The Legal Intelligencer]

October 19, 2011

Blockbusters Loom as Supreme Court Term Begins - The Legal Intelligencer - It is surely tempting to summarize the Supreme Court's upcoming term in the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher: " Wah wah, wah wah wah wah , health care, wah wah wah wah , health care." The court's anticipated consideration of challenges to the Affordable Care Act would be momentous in any term; it becomes especially important when it occurs in the midst of the next presidential election.

Fall 2011 [Business Law Observer]

October 01, 2011

Fall 2011 - Business Law Observer - We welcome your inquiries on these topics and any other questions you may have, and trust that we can provide you with the counsel you need to steer clear of the impediments to successfully running your business.

PA Firms Making Midlevels Happier [The Legal Intelligencer]

September 12, 2011

PA Firms Making Midlevels Happier - The Legal Intelligencer - The bulk of Pennsylvania firms did a better job keeping their midlevel associates happy this year than they did last year, according to a survey by Legal affiliate The American Lawyer.

Standard of Review in Coverage Disputes Over Policies Governed by ERISA May Be Headed to Supreme Court [Insurance Coverage Alert!]

July 11, 2011

Standard of Review in Coverage Disputes Over Policies Governed by ERISA May Be Headed to Supreme Court - Insurance Coverage Alert! - Earlier this month, the 3rd Circuit took the minority side on an issue affecting life and health insurers that appears headed for the Supreme Court. In Viera v. Life Insurance Company of North America (June 10, 2011), the court held that an insurance company did not adequately communicate to policyholders that it retained broad-ranging authority to assess compliance under a group accidental death and dismemberment policy governed by ERISA.

Securities Plaintiffs Win Two Out of Three at Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

June 21, 2011

Securities Plaintiffs Win Two Out of Three at Supreme Court - The Legal Intelligencer - The U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions in securities fraud cases this term. Plaintiffs' lawyers scored
victories in the first two cases.

Supreme Court Decision Limits Scope of Private Securities-Fraud Actions [Securities Offerings and Regulation Alert!]

June 13, 2011

Supreme Court Decision Limits Scope of Private Securities-Fraud Actions - Securities Offerings and Regulation Alert! - This morning, the Supreme Court issued an important decision limiting the scope of private securities-fraud actions. The decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc., et al. v. First Derivative Traders (No. 09-525) will provide powerful protection to third-parties who assist issuers in the preparation of prospectuses and other public statements.

Global-Warming Litigation Gets Frosty Reception at the Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 24, 2011

Global-Warming Litigation Gets Frosty Reception at the Supreme Court - The Legal Intelligencer - It is often difficult to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases. This is not because the individual justices are particularly fickle or inscrutable. The reason is quite simple: The cases that make it all the way to the Supreme Court are hard. The court does not usually intervene in a dispute unless at least two lower courts, each composed of smart jurists, answered the same legal question differently.

A 'CSI effect' for wiretapping? [The National Law Journal]

May 10, 2011

A 'CSI effect' for wiretapping? - The National Law Journal - The impact of the insider-trading prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam will be seismic. The verdict is significant, to be sure, but the prosecutors' method of assembling the evidence in the case will be the most lasting legacy — in particular, the use of wiretaps to prove criminal intent with devastating clarity.

Confronting Changes in Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 19, 2011

Confronting Changes in Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence - The Legal Intelligencer - It is a little-known fact that statues of turtles rest at the bottom of several lampposts in the Supreme Court building. Architect Cass Gilbert's design of the building reportedly featured the turtle prominently because it symbolized the slow, deliberate pace of justice to be rendered by the court. For the most part, the analogy has held true.

Justices Poised to Clarify Standards of Proof in Intellectual Property Cases [The Legal Intelligencer]

March 21, 2011

Justices Poised to Clarify Standards of Proof in Intellectual Property Cases - The Legal Intelligencer - In the coming year, the Supreme Court is poised to overhaul the standards of proof in important areas of IP litigation. This may both hearten and frustrate longtime IP practitioners. At a very basic level, the attention is nice. Then again, it's worth remembering that IP is a sufficiently complicated field as to warrant its own, dedicated
appellate court (the Federal Circuit). When the nine justices consider an IP issue, they do so as novices in that specialized domain,

‘Bad Vehicles’ Could Cause Crash in Class Actions [The Legal Intelligencer]

February 14, 2011

‘Bad Vehicles’ Could Cause Crash in Class Actions - The Legal Intelligencer - In U.S. Supreme Court parlance, a "bad vehicle" is a case whose factual or procedural posture exerts an adverse influence on the legal rule that the justices announce and apply. As we all know, the court does not issue legal rulings sua sponte. Rather, it can only decide specific cases selected from the pool of petitions seeking review at any given time.

U.S. Supreme Court Likely to Continue Robust Free Speech Protection [The Legal Intelligencer]

January 10, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Likely to Continue Robust Free Speech Protection - The Legal Intelligencer - Each year, the Supreme Court considers several cases testing the contours of the First Amendment's protection of speech. The justices' enthusiasm for these cases should not be surprising. The free speech guarantee is a core element of our country's founding spirit and calls to protect dissident voices appeal to our visceral aversion to tyranny. In addition to those lofty principles, the underlying facts of

Three Supreme Court Cases to Test “Presumption Against Preemption” [The Legal Intelligencer]

November 29, 2010

Three Supreme Court Cases to Test “Presumption Against Preemption” - The Legal Intelligencer - The Supreme Court has recognized several species of preemption, though the
categories tend to overlap. “Express” preemption occurs when Congress precludes state
regulation in a particular area by announcing such an intention in the text of a statute.

2017 Philadelphia White Collar Bar Reception	Miami Beach, FL	03/08/2017
The Sports Innovation Series	Philadelphia, PA	02/09/2017
2015 PACDL White Collar Practice Seminar	Philadelphia, PA	11/12/2015
2015 Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations CLE Seminar: Responding to Employee Theft	Philadelphia, PA	11/10/2015
Association of Independent Colleges & Universities of Pennsylvania Annual Meeting	Harrisburg, PA	04/15/2013
Governance, Risk and Compliance - Back to Basics	Philadelphia, PA	03/08/2013
Politics and the Workplace: Best Practices for Employee and Corporate Political Activity	Webinar	09/20/2012
Hot Topics For Philadelphia Area In-house Attorneys	Philadelphia, PA	10/25/2011
Responding to Government Investigations: What to Do When the Government Comes Calling	Philadelphia, PA	04/26/2011
DELVACCA: New to In-House Symposium	Philadelphia, PA	03/23/2011

Practice Areas

Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations

Litigation

Appellate

Intellectual Property Litigation

Industry Sectors

Gaming

Higher Education

Sports

Education

Northwestern University School of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, 1997
Princeton University, A.B., summa cum laude, 1993

Bar Admissions

close X

Share this page:

To Email Address*

From Email Address*

Subject

Message