Amy’s work focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on antitrust. She represents Fortune 500 companies in antitrust matters as plaintiffs and defendants in both federal and state courts at the trial and appellate levels, and in other high stakes commercial disputes.

Clients rely on Amy’s ability to develop and evaluate the facts and legal theories in cases, and to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses. She provides strategic guidance to achieve favorable outcomes in all phases of litigation, from preparing or responding to a complaint through appeal. 

In addition to her litigation work, Amy provides strategic counseling to clients concerning, for example, ways in which they can improve their practices based on lessons learned during the course of litigation, as well as the contours of the attorney-client and work product privileges. She also has participated in presentations to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission on antitrust issues on behalf of clients. Her antitrust work has been recognized by Global Competition Review

Some of the significant matters on which Amy has played a leading role include:

  • Defense of clients in antitrust class actions under state and federal laws in the pharmaceutical, agricultural, paint, and tobacco industries; each of these cases was resolved favorably prior to trial, either through motions practice or settlement. 
  • Representation of E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and DuPont Pioneer twice in major antitrust litigation against Monsanto, asserting monopolization and other claims.  The antitrust claims in both cases were resolved prior to trial through favorable settlements
  • Representation of Starr International in a highly-publicized eight-week trial resulting in  the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruling that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause by taking control of AIG during the 2008 financial crisis
  • Representation of Solar City in a case alleging monopolization claims against the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District arising from its new rate plan, which includes a demand charge applicable solely to new rooftop solar customers   
  • Representation of DuPont in a suit against a former employee for breach of a non-compete provision; the motion of DuPont for a temporary restraining order was granted, after which the case settled

  • Washington College of Law, American University, J.D.; Articles Editor, American University Law Review
  • Mount Holyoke College, B.A., Political Science/French Literature


  • District of Columbia
  • Massachusetts

  • Hon. Charles R. Richey, U.S. District Court: District of Columbia