Schultz G. Thomas

Thomas G. Schultz


  • Cornell Law School, J.D., summa cum laude, 2013
    • Senior Articles Editor, Cornell Law Review
  • University of Minnesota, B.S., magna cum laude, 2009


  • Law Clerk, Judge Roger Wollman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2013-2014


  • 2014, New York
  • 2015, District of Columbia

Tom Schultz represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of complex civil matters at the trial and appellate levels, with a particular focus on plaintiff’s-side trial litigation.  

Tom currently represents the families of more than 800 American service members in a trilogy of cases arising under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.  Previously, he served as trial counsel for the State of Florida in a case against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers, which helped recover more than $3.5 billion, and he represented the National Credit Union Administration in a series of lawsuits against major financial institutions, recovering more than $5.1 billion.  He also represents individuals and organizations in SEC investigations, relators and defendants in False Claims Act cases, plaintiffs and defendants in civil fraud cases, telecommunications carriers in civil and regulatory matters, and family members in litigation concerning closely held businesses and trusts.

Representative Experience

  • Atchley, et al. v. AstraZeneca, et al.  Represents service members, civilians, and their families in an Anti-Terrorism Act case against Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GE, AstraZeneca, and Roche.
  • State of Florida v. Purdue, et al.  Served as trial counsel for the State of Florida in civil case against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers that contributed to the opioid crisis in Florida.  The case settled during the fourth week of trial, at which point Florida had recovered more than $3.5 billion from the defendants. (2023)
  • Atos v. Desai.  Represented founder of business in fraud case brought by purchaser of business.  Obtained voluntary dismissal of all claims. (2023)
  • Harbinger v. Singh, et al.  Argued motion to dismiss and obtained dismissal of complaint alleging fraud in the sale of satellite spectrum and seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. (2022)
  • Werlich v. Schnell.  Represented pro bono client in constitutional challenge to Minnesota registration statute.  After a series of appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as applied to the client as alleged in complaint. (2020)
  • Confidential family business arbitration. Represented a co-owner of a closely held family real estate and business empire worth billions of dollars, in a dispute with the owner’s sibling and co-owner.  The case proceeded to an arbitration hearing and settled on favorable terms during the hearing. (2019)
  • Confidential SEC investigation.  Represented individual in connection with SEC investigation and threatened enforcement action alleging market manipulation.  The investigation ended with no enforcement action and no settlement by the client. (2018)
  • Marriott Family Trust Litigation.  Represented the primary beneficiary of a trust in a high-profile lawsuit against the trustees, his father, and uncle.  The complaint alleged that the trustees violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, wrongfully refusing requests for the distribution of principal and/or income from the trust.  The lawsuit settled on favorable terms. (2018)
  • NCUA v. Goldman Sachs, et al.  Represented the National Credit Union Administration as liquidating agent in a series of lawsuits against major financial institutions regarding the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.  The last of these suits were resolved shortly before trial, with defendants in three suits offering judgment for the full damage demand plus attorneys’ fees.  More than $5.1 billion was recovered. (2017)
  • People v. Roberts.  Obtained reversal of client’s conviction for illegally possessing a firearm after an appellate court held that the search that uncovered this firearm violated client’s Fourth Amendment rights. (2017)

Articles, News & Events