Michael Leffel focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation matters and arbitrations. Michael is the chair of the firm鈥檚 Consumer Law, Finance & Class Action Practice. He is also a member of the firm鈥檚 Appellate, Antitrust & Competition, and Commercial Litigation Practices. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and has also been adjunct at the University of Michigan Law School, teaching courses on complex litigation and class actions.
Michael has represented clients, including many Fortune 100 companies, in more than 400 class actions. The cases involved various state consumer protection statutes, antitrust, securities, breach of warranty, environmental nuisance actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Truth-In-Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act, and product liability claims, among other issues. Michael also has extensive experience in representing some of the leading prescription benefit managers in arbitration hearings, litigation, and appeals.
Michael has served as counsel for clients in 16 cases before the United States Supreme Court and has represented parties in numerous cases before courts of appeals at both the state and federal level. He also has represented clients before various regulatory agencies and in congressional investigations.
Prior to joining 麻豆传媒 & Lardner, Michael worked for Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, D.C., where his practice focused on commercial litigation and where he was awarded the John H. Pickering award for his commitment to pro bono representation.
Representative Experience
- Represented two different Fortune 100 companies in lengthy arbitration hearings, including one in which resulted in a judicial confirmation of a final award in excess of $285 million for our client.
- Enochs, et al. v. Domtar Paper Co., LLC (E.D. of Tenn.). Defending paper company in environmental nuisance class action.
- Hamilton v. 3D Idapro Solutions, LLC (W.D. Wis.). Defended manufacturer against allegations of violations of environmental laws and public nuisance. Defeated class certification and ultimately resolved on favorable terms.
- Tennessen v. Greif, Inc., et al. (Cir. Ct. Milwaukee, Cty). Defend manufacturer in environmental nuisance class action with favorable resolution.
- Genta, et al. v. 3d Idapro Solutions, LLC (D. Or.). Defended food processor in environmental nuisance class action with favorable resolution.
- Flynn v. FCA, et al., 39 F.4th 946 (6th 2022). Led a team at the district court level and successfully argued on appeal a novel claim based on allegations of cyber hacking of vehicles, ultimately defeating a nationwide class action of automobile purchasers.
- Bledsoe v. FCA US LLC and Cummins Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 (E.D. Mich.). Defeated a proposed nationwide class action alleging use of emission testing defeat devices in diesel engine.
- In re: Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, (E.D. Pa.). Defeated nationwide antitrust claims against Fortune 50 prescription benefit manager.
- In re: ARC Inflators Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3051 (N.D. Ga.). Defending air bag inflator manufacturer in MDL against various claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and deceptive advertising.
- Kleen Products LLC v. Int鈥檒 Paper, (N.D. Ill.). Defended paper company in antitrust class action alleging conspiracy to fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- BPP v. CarmarkPCS Health, LLC, 2022 WL 16955461 (8th 2022). Obtained summary judgment and prevailed on appeal in defeating proposed nationwide class action based on alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, et al., 560 U.S. 183 (2010). Represented group of economists as amici curiae in support of respondents in antitrust action.
- Associates Against Outlier Fraud v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc., (2d Cir. 2014) and 817 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2016). Defeated False Claims Act claims pursued by a relator against a fiscal intermediary relating to Medicare reimbursements.
- Crawford Pro. Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 256 (5th Cir. 2014). Defeated class action alleging trade secret misappropriation and intentional interference with business relations and violations state any willing provider laws.
- Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al., (E.D.N.Y.). Defended Fortune 50 prescription benefit manager against claims of antitrust violations relating to competition in the pharmacy industry.
Presentations and Publications
- 鈥淣o Harm, No Foul: Greenwashing Lawsuit Dismissed for Lack of Article III Standing,鈥 March 11, 2025, Co-Author
- 鈥淪ixth Circuit: Reliance Can Bar Class Certification Even if Not Express Element of Consumer Statutory Claim,鈥 Dec. 5, 2024, Co-Author
- 鈥淎 Trap for the Unwary: Fraud Rising in Claims-Made Class Action Settlements,鈥 July 16, 2024, Co- Author
- 鈥淢otion to Strike Damages Expert Leads to Denial of Class Certification,鈥 March 19, 2025, Co-Author
- 鈥淣ew Circuit Decisions Highlight When Individualized Damages Issues May Preclude Class Certification,鈥 Nov. 9, 2023, Co-Author
- 鈥淣ew Guidance on Attorneys鈥 Fees in Class Action Settlements,鈥 Oct. 11, 2023, Co-Author
- The Attorney鈥檚 Guide to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Seventh Edition, 2022), State Bar of Wisconsin CLE Books, Co-Author
- 鈥淐lass Victory Vacated as Seventh Circuit Adds to Current Split Over Standing and Intangible Injuries,鈥 May 31, 2022, Co-Author
- 鈥淓ight Circuit Keeps Two Product Liability Class Actions Off the Road,鈥 Sept. 7, 2021, Co-Author
- 鈥淪upreme Court Rules Injury at Law Insufficiently Concrete to Establish Injury in Fact,鈥 June 28, 2021, Co-Author
- 鈥淪upreme Court Narrows TCPA Ban on Autodialers,鈥 April 1, 2021, Co-Author
- 鈥淏lackmailer Beware: Seventh Circuit Disgorges Class Objectors鈥 Inequitable Settlement Proceeds,鈥 August 2020, Co-Author
- 鈥淪upreme Court TCPA News: Government Debt Collectors Beware and Autodialers Under Review,鈥 July 2020, Co-Author
- 鈥淪eventh Circuit Holds Alleged Violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Confers Article III Standing,鈥 May 2020, Co-Author
- 鈥淭op Eight Action Items for Educational Institutions to Avoid, Prepare for, and Resolve COVID-19 Class Actions,鈥 May 2020, Co-Author
- 鈥淒.C. Circuit Sidesteps Bristol-Myers Personal Jurisdiction Defense in Class Action, but Seventh Circuit Rejects It,鈥 March 2020, Co-Author
- 鈥淩eal Estate Industry Facing Threat of New TCPA Class Actions,鈥 August 2019, Co-Author
- 鈥淩ecent Decision from District of Oregon Denying Enhanced Damages Underscores Vast Liability Exposure Under the TCPA,鈥 June 2019, Co-Author
- 鈥淓n Banc Ninth Circuit Clarifies That Settlement Classes Are Not Held to Same Standard as Litigated Classes,鈥 June 2019, Co-Author
- Author, 鈥淒on鈥檛 Delay Rule 23(f),鈥 Consumer Class Defense Counsel, February 2019
- Author, 鈥淩ESPA Class Action Case Cannot Survive Scrutiny under Spokeo or Menominee,鈥 Consumer Class Defense Counsel, January 2019
- Author, 鈥淎 Primer: Wisconsin鈥檚 New Class Action Statute,鈥 Wisconsin Lawyer Volume 91, Number 4, April 2018
- Author, 鈥淭he D.C. Circuit Significantly Limits the Reach of the TCPA Statute, but Issues Still Remain,鈥 Consumer Class Defense Counsel, March 2018
- Co-authored a chapter, The Attorney鈥檚 Guide to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Sixth Edition, 2015), State Bar of Wisconsin CLE Books
- Author, 鈥淛urisdiction Issues Dog Multistate Class Actions,鈥 Consumer Class Defense Counsel, March 2018
- Author, 鈥4 Tips for Applying Arbitration Agreements to TCPA Claims,鈥 Consumer Class Defense Counsel, February 2018
- 鈥淐lass action waivers in arbitration agreements enforceable: High court,鈥 Business Insurance, June 20, 2013
- Quoted, 鈥淎ttorneys React to High Court鈥檚 Arbitration Ruling,鈥 Law360, June 20, 2013
- 鈥淒evelopments in Class Actions,鈥 Litigation, Dispute Resolution, & Appellate Practice Institute 2013, May 2013
- Quoted, 鈥淪mall Pharmacies Seek Class Cert. In Caremark Antitrust Row,鈥 Law360, November 2012
- 鈥淢ooting Plaintiff鈥檚 Case Might Not End Class Action,鈥 Law360, October 2012
- 鈥淒ebunking Class Certification Myths,鈥 Law360, January 2012
- 鈥淭rends in 鈥楢ll Natural鈥 Class Actions,鈥 Law360, November 2011
- 鈥淯sing Offers Of Judgment in Class Actions,鈥 Law360, September 2011
- 鈥淐oncepcion Steers Potential Class Actions Toward Arbitration,鈥 Wisconsin State Bar News, July 2011
- 鈥淔oreclosure Actions Could Result in FDCPA Violations,鈥 LexisNexis庐 Research Solutions, July 2010
- 鈥淣ew Rulings from the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit Shed New Light on RESPA Liability and the Filed Rate Doctrine,鈥 LexisNexis庐 Emerging Issues Analysis, July 2009
- 鈥淐urrent Developments in Lender Liability Law 鈥 Consumer Context Part II,鈥 麻豆传媒 Web conference, April 2009
- The Importance of Administrative Procedures Act Compliance in RESPA Reform, RESPRO庐 Magazine, Second Quarter 2008, Co-Authored
- Overcoming Patent Infringement Allegations: Key Insights Into Patent Licensing & Effective Strategies For Dealing With Alleged Breaches & Extortion, Aspatore Books, 2004, by Paul Hunter (editor)
- Michigan Law Review, Volumes 94-95, 1995-1997 (Managing Editor)
- Note, A More Sensible Approach to Regulating Independent Expenditures: Defending the Constitutionality of the FEC鈥檚 New Express Advocacy Standard, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 868 (1996)
/Passle/67195fd3e9093d25035607af/SearchServiceImages/2025-06-30-16-44-47-029-6862beff000ef5f3a4163f92.jpg)
The Supreme Court Reins in Agency Power Again: What McKesson Means for TCPA Litigation
The Supreme Court recently signaled a further shift away from judicial deference to administrative rulings. The question of whether the...
Will Supreme Court Punt on Circuit Split Over Article III Standing in Class Actions?
On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard argument on an issue that has divided the circuits: 鈥淲hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury?鈥
No Harm, No Foul: Greenwashing Lawsuit Dismissed for Lack of Article III Standing
It is well-settled that under Article III of the Constitution, United States federal courts are limited to trying 鈥渃ases and controversies.鈥
Sixth Circuit: Reliance Can Bar Class Certification Even if Not Express Element of Consumer Statutory Claim
Courts routinely refuse to certify consumer class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) based on the need for an individualized showing of the reliance element of a fraud or deceptive trade practices claim.
A Trap for the Unwary: Fraud Rising in Claims-Made Class Action Settlements
When settling consumer product class actions, many parties agree to resolve their claims using what is known as a 鈥渃laims-made鈥 settlement model.
Motion to Strike Damages Expert Leads to Denial of Class Certification
A recent decision denying class certification in the Northern District of Illinois highlights the importance for class action defendants of challenging a named plaintiff鈥檚 damages expert as part of a strategy for opposing class certification.