W. Michael Holm

Mike Holm is co-chair of Williams Mullen's Unfair Business Practices Litigation team and co-author of its Unfair Business Practices blog. He is a senior trial lawyer who has represented numerous business entities in bet-the-company and other unfair business practices cases. He has tried more than 30 cases involving breach of fiduciary duty, business conspiracy, legal malpractice, interference with contract, conversion of corporate assets, trade secret misappropriation, construction delay claims, environmental regulatory issues, dissolution of partnership and accounting claims, securities fraud, wrongful discharge, breach of contract, torts and other business related matters. Numerous other litigation matters have included civil RICO, federal constitutional claims, federal and state environmental regulations, zoning and easement disputes, covenants not to compete, commercial banking matters for the FDIC, mortgage banking disputes, trademark and copyright infringement, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Approximately 75 percent of his cases have been in federal courts, particularly the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mike Holm is co-chair of Williams Mullen's Unfair Business Practices Litigation team and co-author of its Unfair Business Practices blog. He is a senior trial lawyer who has represented numerous business entities in bet-the-company and other unfair business practices cases. He has tried more than 30 cases involving breach of fiduciary duty, business conspiracy, legal malpractice, interference with contract, conversion of corporate assets, trade secret misappropriation, construction delay claims, environmental regulatory issues, dissolution of partnership and accounting claims, securities fraud, wrongful discharge, breach of contract, torts and other business related matters. Numerous other litigation matters have included civil RICO, federal constitutional claims, federal and state environmental regulations, zoning and easement disputes, covenants not to compete, commercial banking matters for the FDIC, mortgage banking disputes, trademark and copyright infringement, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Approximately 75 percent of his cases have been in federal courts, particularly the Eastern District of Virginia.

In the real estate context, Mr. Holm has tried cases involving public/private streets, specific performance of real estate contracts and other contractual disputes. He also has litigated matters involving easements, zoning disputes and condemnation matters. Several of these cases were successfully handled at the appellate stage.

Electronic discovery has changed the face of business litigation. Mr. Holm offers his clients in-depth experience in e-discovery including matters relating to document preservation and retention, litigation holds and spoliation.

Mr. Holm also has an extensive appellate practice, having handled and argued dozens of appeals before the Second, Fourth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Virginia, among others. Mr. Holm is a permanent member of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In September 2009, Mr. Holm taught American Business Law to Chinese entrepreneurs enrolled in an Executive MBA program in Wuxi and Suzhou, China.

Mr. Holm received a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Virginia and a juris doctor degree from the College of William & Mary.

Representative Matters

• Corinthian Mortgage Corp. v. Summit Financial, LLC., et al., (Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, Chancery No. 187513). Lead plaintiff’s counsel in business conspiracy case by direct mail mortgage company against nine former employees and family of corporations that, along with former employees, established a competing business. Suit involved claims of breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act (Va. Code § 18.2-500). During the case, the trial court entered orders: (1) finding spoliation of electronic and paper files; (2) granting an adverse inference instruction against one individual defendant; and (3) finding that, by their conduct, the individual defendants had waived the attorney-client privilege and work product protection as to their representation by prior counsel regarding discovery responses and other matters. Case settled in 2007 for payment of $10.5 million by defendants.

• Feddeman and Company CPA v. Langan Associates, P.C., 260 Va. 35, 530 S.E.2d 668 (2000). Lead counsel for plaintiff in action by accounting firm against former officers, directors and employees as well as a rival accounting firm for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act. After a six day trial, jury returned verdict against all defendants for $3.3 million. Rather than treble the damages, the trial judge set aside the verdict. Reinstated by unanimous opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court.

• In re Hanes, 214 B.R. 786 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 1997), rev'd on appeal in unpublished opinion by Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr. (E.D.Va., July 29, 1998), judgment for plaintiff on remand (Bankr. E.D.Va., June 1, 1999). Lead plaintiff's counsel in suit by executrix of mother's estate against her brother for defalcation and against large New York law firm for legal malpractice. After twice being dismissed and reversed on appeal, case was tried over two week period. Subsequently, Bankruptcy judge entered judgment for defendants in published opinion. Reversed for third time on appeal and on remand Bankruptcy judge entered judgment for plaintiff against brother for $4.1 million and against law firm for over $15 million, including interest.

• Vanguard Research, Inc. v. PEAT, Inc., 304 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Represented plaintiff in action filed in Northern District of Alabama asking court to declare patent invalid or, alternatively, not infringed by plaintiff’s conduct. The trial judge converted a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss into one for Summary Judgment, held that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in that there was no case or controversy and dismissed the case with prejudice. Reversed on appeal on basis that a justiciable controversy existed and remanded for trial.