Fisher, Louis K.

Current Employment Position(s)

Partner

Lawyer Overview

Lou Fisher litigates complex facts and legal issues on behalf of corporations, legislative bodies, government officials, and other individuals. Lou's practice covers all phases of litigation, with a focus on dispositive motions and appeals, and he has filed briefs in more than a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His experience spans a variety of subjects including breach of contract, oil and gas rights, labor and employment, antitrust, and constitutional rights.

Lou currently is representing an energy company before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and before an agency appellate board in a set of disputes with the U.S. government over ownership interests in a large oil field. He also is representing a major energy company against a foreign government and its state oil company in litigation over responsibility for third-party environmental claims. In addition, Lou recently obtained a voluntary dismissal of an employee's claims of retaliation for alleged whistleblower activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He also won, and successfully defended on appeal, a million-dollar judgment for a member of Congress whose privacy rights were violated when another congressman disseminated an illegally recorded tape of a telephone conversation among congressional leaders. Lou's trial experience includes victories on behalf of state government entities in complex voting rights litigation before special three-judge federal district courts in New York and South Carolina.

Lou is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court. He has written on voting rights law and on Supreme Court decisions in the areas of antitrust, employment discrimination, and property rights.

Areas of Practice

• Issues & Appeals
• Appellate Advocacy in the U.S. Supreme Court
• Appellate Litigation in Other Federal & State Courts
• Trial Litigation in Federal & State Courts

Representative Cases

• Appellate court grants appointment of counsel in civil rights case , (2009)
• Arizonans for Fair and Legal Redistricting defend Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission plans
• California Republican Party obtains summary judgment in federal challenge to constitutionality of state redistricting plans
• Chevron files amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court case involving joint venture "loyalty rules"
• Chevron prevails in U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case involving joint venture pricing , (2006)
• Chevron pursues arbitration to enforce contractual right to indemnification against Petroecuador , (2009)
• Chevron victorious in challenge to Hawaii statute capping rent collected from lessee gas stations as Takings Clause violation
• City of Jackson Mississippi appeals disparate impact claims in age discrimination case to U.S. Supreme Court
• Colorado General Assembly petitions U.S. Supreme Court to review Colorado decision invalidating redistricting plan
• Colorado voters challenge constitutionality of Colorado's voting district map in U.S. Supreme Court
• Congressman wins favorable summary judgment and damages in suit over the disclosure of an illegally recorded tape , (2009)
• Florida Senator McKay secures dismissal of litigation over congressional redistricting plan under Voting Rights Act
• International Mass Retail Association and American Chemistry Council file amicus curiae brief
• Intervenors successfully oppose federal court injunction against use of North Carolina court's redistricting plan
• Kaiser Aluminum appeals ALJ decision involving unfair labor practice
• Kaiser Aluminum challenges NLRB conclusion that it unlawfully locked out employees after strike
• Mexican client wins U.S. asylum
• Michigan Republican Party successfully intervenes to defend congressional redistricting plan
• Moscow-based international financial institution testifies in grand jury investigation
• NY state legislative redistricting plan is defended against voter claims of 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act violations , (2009)
• South Carolina state senate pursues federal court action to establish redistricting plans for use after 2000 census
• Voters and political party officials successfully defend congressional redistricting plan against Voting Rights Act challenge
• Washington Legal Foundation urges U.S. Supreme Court to review state appropriation of interest earned on lawyers' trust accounts

West Practice Categories

Bankruptcy Litigation, Class Actions, Complex Litigation, Federal Appellate Practice, Federal Claims Court, Federal Trial Practice, International Trade Litigation, Litigation & Appeals, Military & Veterans Appeals, Multidistrict Litigation, Patent Litigation, State Appellate Practice, State Trial Practice, Tax Litigation, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, US Supreme Court

Bar Admissions

• District of Columbia
• New York

Education

• Yale University

Published Works

• Supreme Court Preview: Disparate Impact Claims Under the ADEA, Engage, Vol. 7, issue 1, 2006
• The Supreme Court's Decision in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States: An Important Development Regarding the Legal Consequences of Document Retention Policies, 2005
• Supreme Court Decision: Regulatory Takings, Engage, Vol. 6, issue 1, 2005
• A Legislative Task: Why Four Types of Redistricting Challenges Are Not, or Should Not Be, Recognized by Courts, Election Law Journal, 2005
• Supreme Court Preview: Disparate Impact Claims Under the ADEA, Engage, Vol. 5, issue 2, 2004

Address

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-2113

Phones

1.202.879.3637 (Business Phone)

Faxes

1.202.626.1700 (Business Fax)

Emails

Contact Us (Business Email)

Websites

http://www.jonesday.com