Bailey & Glasser LLP

Attorney

Michael, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Bailey & Glasser, concentrates his practice in complex litigation, including consumer class actions, complex commercial litigation, qui tam and false claims matters, and parens patriae litigation.

Michael is currently a member of the management committee for a consortium of law firms that directly represents a number of Governors, State Attorneys General, and Underground Storage Tank Funds in ongoing investigations, mediations, and litigations against the major oil companies in efforts to recoup improper overpayments obtained by the oil companies. This ongoing endeavor has currently returned over one hundred million dollars to the various states.

Michael currently represents the BSA | The Software Alliance, an association of the leading software manufacturers including Apple Inc., Adobe Systems, and Microsoft Corporation, in investigating and prosecuting allegations of copyright infringement.

Michael has represented several hospitals in financial fraud matters involving their issuance of auction rate securities.  He also is on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in a nationwide antitrust class action involving the illegal tying of cable set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services. He’s also represented a number of health and welfare funds for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He submitted an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Law Students in Court, a clinical program for law school students in the District of Columbia, in Douglas v. Kriegsfield Corporation, No. 02-CV-711 (D.C. Oct. 13, 2005) (en banc). The holding in Douglas was a significant victory for tenants in the District of Columbia as it requires a landlord to actually attempt to accommodate a disabled tenant before it is able to justify an eviction on health and safety grounds.

Michael graduated from The Catholic University School of Law, cum laude, in 2002. While at Catholic University, he served on the Catholic University Law Review and was awarded first place in the John H. Fanning Labor Law Writing Competition. Following law school, Michael worked in the litigation department of O’Melveny & Myers LLP in Washington, D.C. Prior to attending Catholic University, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1993 with a Masters degree in Industrial Relations and from California State University-Fresno in 1991 with a Bachelors degree in Human Resources Management.

Prior to attending law school, Michael work in the Research and Field Services Departments for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in Washington, DC, providing support to the IBT’s national bargaining committees. He also worked in the Research Department for the American Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”) in Madison, Wisconsin and, while in law school, as a legal assistant in the Civil Division in the Attorney Generals’ office for the District of Columbia.

He is married, has two sons, and is a volunteer for and sponsor of Capitol Hill Little League and volunteers for the NOVA Ice Dogs hockey program.

Comcast Set Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2034

Michael Murphy serves on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in MDL action alleging antitrust violations related to defendant’s set-top cable box policies.

UST Litigation & Related Proceedings

We serve on the management committee of a consortium of firms representing 22 governors, state attorneys general, and underground storage tank funds pursuing claims against the major oil companies for overpayments of UST cleanup costs. This ongoing endeavor has returned over $100 million dollars to the various states.

Business Software Alliance Copyright Investigations

The firm represents BSA | The Software Alliance, an association of leading software manufacturers including Apple, Adobe Systems, and Microsoft, in investigating and prosecuting copyright infringement matters.

Auction Rate Securities Arbitration Matters

The firm represented several hospitals in financial fraud matters involving their issuance of auction rate securities. Each of the FINRA arbitration matters resulted in settlement agreements.

Blixeth v. Yellowstone Club Liquidating Trust

Blixseth v. Yellowstone Club Liquidating Trust—Bailey & Glasser obtained affirmance in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of a contempt order and a $13.8 million default judgment relating to the sale of property in violation of a court order.

Bar Admissions
New York, 2012
West Virginia, 2008
Washington, 2006
District of Columbia, 2003

Government Experience
Judicial Extern, Hon. Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2001-2002

Memberships and Affiliations
Member, American Association for Justice (“AAJ”), Small Business Torts Committee
Member, Public Justice, Membership, Outreach & Diversity Committee
Member, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (“PIABA”)

Publications & Panels

  • Moderator, AAJ 2014 Summer Meeting, Business Torts Section.
  • Participant, Plaintiff’s Class Action Forum, April 2014 (The Forum, which is limited to only 44 of plaintiffs’ attorneys on an invitation-only basis, is an intense two-day educational session covering a number of leading issues that are vital to class action litigation)
  • Speaker, New Trends in Employee Benefits Class Actions, Mass Torts Made Perfect, October 2013 (co-presented with Gregory Y. Porter, Bailey & Glasser LLP)
  • Weeks v. Wyeth: Certification of Controlling Issues of State Law, AAJ 2013 Summer Meeting, Business Torts Section.
  • On the Merits: Wyeth, Inc., et al. v. Weeks, Washington Legal Foundation, January 2012
  • Panel: Wal-Mart v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Examines How and When to Certify a Class Action, Hosted by the Washington Legal Foundation, March 2011
  • The Class Action Fairness Act: Highlighting the Problems with the Patchwork of Certification Procedures, AAJ Business Torts Newsletter, Vol. 17, No. 1, Winter 2009
  • CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement: Keeping Smaller Class Actions in State Court Where They Belong, American Bar Association Class Action & Derivative Suits Newsletter, 2009
  • Third-Party Subpoenas in Multi-District Litigation: The Question of Proper Jurisdiction, American Bar Association, Mass Torts Litigation Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 1, Fall/Winter 2004
  • Assembly Bill 2222: California Pushes and Breaks the Disability Law Envelope, 51 Cath. U. L. Rev. 495 (2002) (John H. Fanning Labor Law Writing Competition Winner)
  • The Federal Courts’ Struggle with Burden Allocation for Reinstatement Claims Under the Family and Medical Leave Act: Breakdown of the Rigid Dual Framework, 50 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1081 (2001)

Court Admissions
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

Q: Let’s start out with a general overview of your practice. How do you describe to recruits or family what it is you do?

A: I typically say that “I am a plaintiff-side lawyer, typically doing consumer class actions and whistleblower litigation. I also do work representing states that pursue actions against large corporations. But I also enjoy the business side of law and working with companies to assist with compliance and business development issues.”

Q: What do you like about your practice? What is professionally satisfying?

A: I enjoy my practice because I typically work across law firms with a number of the top attorneys in the country on impactful litigation.

Q: What cases are keeping you busy these days?

A: I am spending a fair amount of my time working on the UST cases, especially an upcoming trial in New Hampshire v. Shell. I’m also spending quite a bit of time on the pending antitrust matter pending against Blue Cross Blue Shield in Alabama.

Q: How were you hired for those matters?

A: For the UST matters, we were typically retained through the AG’s office of the state.

Q: Can you describe for us their current procedural posture, or resolution?

A: We’ve got a number of active litigations involving BP and Shell that are past the motion to dismiss and heading toward trial. To date, we’ve settled approximately $100 million in claims which has been a big shot in the arm for many of these environmental funds.

Q: What were/are some of the challenges you face?

A: The biggest challenge in these cases is managing the sheer volume of discovery among the various defendants.

Q: What is the impact on clients or the industry from this case?

A: The UST cases are important because we’re returning money to the State funds in charge of cleanup up the leaking tank mess that many of the major oil companies left behind.

Q: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school?

A: I always assumed I would be in litigation, but expected to have more of an employment bent based on my background in Human Resources and Industrial Relations.

Q: Why did you pursue a career in the law in the first place?

A: I studied Human Resources in college and enjoyed the legal aspects of my studies. While obtaining my master’s degree in Industrial Relations I was able to take a number of law school courses to satisfy my degree requirements.

Q: Did you have a favorite class or professor that was particularly influential in your studies or future career?

A: Prof. Mark Keppler, CSU-Fresno. Great mentor; steered me towards UW-Madison and the law generally. I still keep in touch with him.

Q: What do you wish you had known or done differently in school? Or, put another way, do you have advice now for current law school students?

A: Hit the ground running because grades and class rankings matter.

Q: Is there anything in particular early in your career that you consider key to arriving at your current level of excellence?

A: The ability to work with all types of people. I’m as comfortable dealing with pro bono bankruptcy clients as I am with general counsels. It’s important to have a breadth of experience to draw from.

Q: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

A: I’ve switched from defense-side work the almost exclusively being a plaintiff’s lawyer.

Q: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a case/negotiation that you admire, and why?

A: I was impressed by Joe Whatley and worked against him on an MDL case for many years. He’s a very smart and pragmatic lawyer and I’m fortunate that I now get to work on cases with him.

Q: Is there a case/deal/client in your career that stands out as a “favorite” or one that is particularly memorable?

A: I’ve generally enjoyed most of the cases that I’ve worked on, but I’d say the pro bono cases I’ve worked on have been the most fun. I’m recently settled a breach of contract case for a good friend of the firm that was extremely contentious and was a blast to work on.

Q: Tell us about how you interact with clients. Do you view it as important to develop business, and if so, how do you?

A: I’ve found that it’s really important to keep open lines of communication with your clients, especially dealing with class representatives.

Q: Tell us about your career path. Did you start at your current firm? If so, what kept you there? If not, what persuaded you to join your current firm?

A: I started at a large 1,500 defense-side firm but knew within a few years that I wanted to make a switch. I became aware of Bailey & Glasser through a few coincidences and was drawn to it because of the people at the firm, the quality of the work, and the vision for the future of the firm.