Attaway K. Scott

Scott K. Attaway

Education

  • Boston University School of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, 1997
    • Semester of international and comparative law at St. Catherine’s College, University of Oxford, 1997
    • Editor, Boston University Law Review, 1996-1997
  • Berklee College of Music, B.M., magna cum laude, 1993

Clerkships

  • Law Clerk, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1998-1999
  • Law Clerk, Judge Catherine C. Blake, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 1997-1998

Admitted

  • 1998, Massachusetts
  • 2001, District of Columbia
  • 2003, Supreme Court of the US
  • 2016, New York

Scott K. Attaway represents plaintiffs and defendants in a broad array of complex matters in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals, trial courts, and regulatory agencies.  

Representations have covered subjects including antitrust, trade secrets, cloud-based data and software, securities including mortgage-backed securities, pharmaceuticals, federal preemption of state law, telecommunications, disputes between sovereign States over water rights and boundaries, and federal court jurisdiction and complex procedure.

Scott also formed and runs a U.S. non-profit that provides support including housing, education, and medical care for homeless children in India.  Visit www.ramanas.org for more information.

Representative Experience

  • Representing cloud-based software provider Veeva Systems, Inc. in a complex antitrust and trade-secret dispute against IQVIA, Inc.
  • Co-leading extensive trial litigation in cases brought by the National Credit Union Administration Board as plaintiff against mortgage-backed securities trustees Deutsche Bank and U.S. Bank.
  • Successfully represented the National Credit Union Administration Board in multiple cases as plaintiff against major Wall Street banks serving as mortgage-backed securities underwriters, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, RBS, and UBS, resulting in an aggregate recovery of more than $5 billion for the agency and its insurance funds that ensure the health of the federal credit union system.
  • Successfully represented CUNA Mutual Group in cases against eight major Wall Street banks serving as mortgage-backed securities underwriters.  Obtained complete reversal on appeal of the trial court’s dismissal at summary judgment in CUNA Mutual v. RBS Securities, 799 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015).  Subsequently, defendants in all other pending suits agreed to settlements.
  • Kaiser Health v. Pfizer, 721 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013).  Successfully represented Kaiser on appeal in defending $150 million jury verdict for off-label drug marketing fraud by Pfizer. 
  • Farina v. Nokia, No. 10-1064 (U.S.).  Successfully represented defendant mobile phone providers in persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to deny review of a court of appeals decision finding that state-law claims alleging the Federal Communications Commission had adopted inadequate standards concerning permissible amounts of radiation from mobile phones were preempted by federal law. 
  • Indian Brands Farms v. Novartis Crop Protection, 617 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2009).  Successfully represented blueberry farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by a pesticide.
  • Fisher v. City of San Jose, California, 558 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).  Successfully represented the City of San Jose and its police department on Fourth Amendment issues concerning a 12-hour armed standoff, obtaining a 6-5 reversal of the initial appellate decision. 
  • Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).  Successfully represented a musician who tragically lost her arm due to an improperly administered migraine drug, obtaining a 5-4 decision over the objection of the United States and numerous industry participants.  The Court held that Food & Drug Administration approval of a manufacturer’s label did not preempt a jury verdict concluding that the label provided inadequate warnings of the known risk of the drug that severely harmed our client. 
  • New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (2008).  Successfully represented the State of Delaware in a case brought under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by New Jersey, which sought to build a liquefied natural gas unloading dock extending from the New Jersey shore onto submerged lands belonging to Delaware.  The case raised fascinating and challenging historical questions dating back to the original grant of territory in 1682 by the Duke of York to William Penn.  The Court agreed with Delaware that a 1905 interstate compact between the States required Delaware’s approval before any such project could be built. 
  • South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, Original (U.S. filed 2007).  Successfully represented the State of South Carolina in obtaining adequate flows from an interstate river originating in North Carolina through eventual settlement following several years of litigation and development of expert analyses by hydrologists and economists.  
  • Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006).  Successfully represented a group of plaintiff investors opposing removal to federal court of cases filed in state court, in a case concerning important principles of removal jurisdiction.
  • Lincoln Property v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005).  Successfully represented a defendant real property owner in removing a case filed in state court to federal court, in a case concerning important principles of removal jurisdiction.
  • Bates v. Dow AgroSciences, 544 U.S. 431 (2005).  Successfully represented Texas farmers seeking a remedy for severe crop damage caused by inadequate pesticide label warnings.  In a watershed decision that limited the instances in which federal law may be deemed to preempt state laws, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively reversed or abrogated more than 50 adverse lower court decisions in similar cases, over the objection of the United States and numerous industry participants that participated before the Court as amici curiae (or interested parties).

Publications

  • The Case for Constitutional Discrimination in Taxation of Out-of-State Municipal Bonds, 76 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 737 (1996).
  • In Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court reached the result advocated for in this article, published while Scott was in law school.  The Court held that a state constitutionally may tax investor income from municipal bonds issued by other States while declining to tax investor income from its own municipal bonds.  The article was cited in the amicus brief filed by 49 States, and the Attorney General for the lead State wrote that it had helped substantially in developing the constitutional legal theories on which the States prevailed in the Supreme Court.

News