|
Experience:
Jim Metropoulos focuses primarily on communications and appellate litigation. He also has experience with products liability, regulated industries, insurance coverage disputes, insurance company liquidations, design and construction disputes, civil RICO and antitrust.
Jim has devoted the majority of his practice to communications-related litigation, and he has worked almost exclusively on communications matters since becoming a partner in 2001. In that time, Jim has represented AT&T (and before that, SBC and Ameritech) in a host of matters, addressing numerous complex and hotly contested issues. He has served as lead appellate counsel in both state and federal appellate courts and as lead trial counsel in numerous arbitrations and other disputes before state regulatory commissions.
Jim has been described as "thorough," "very diligent," "excellent on his feet," and "a favorite among clients for appeals," with the "depth of expertise to handle complex matters" (Chambers USA). He has also been recognized as a Leading Lawyer by Chambers USA since 2005.
Prior to joining Mayer Brown, Jim served as a Law Clerk to The Honorable Joseph T. Sneed, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1993-1994) and worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers (formerly Coopers & Lybrand) in Detroit (1985-1990).
Notable Engagements:
Jim represented AT&T in a significant preemption case in Illinois federal district court in which AT&T challenged certain wholesale access requirements imposed by the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") under Section 5/13-801 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act ("Section 801"). The ICC had opined that, by enacting Section 801, the state legislature had consigned federal standards for unbundled access to the "scrap heap of time." AT&T filed suit, and the district court accepted, completely, all of AT&T's arguments on preemption and conclusively rejected the opposing arguments of the ICC and of several competing carriers. The court then entered a permanent injunction that tracked, virtually word for word, the order proposed by AT&T. Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. O'Connell-Diaz, No. 05 C 1149, 2006 WL 2796488 (Sept. 28, 2006) (granting partial summary judgment) & 2008 WL 239149 (Jan. 28, 2008) (granting summary judgment, final judgment, and permanent injunction).
Jim assisted in representing three "affiliates" of Sprint in high-profile, high-stakes breach of contract cases challenging Sprint's conduct in the aftermath of the Sprint-Nextel merger. The clients received favorable results in two separate bench trials (one in Delaware and the other in Illinois). The Illinois court's opinion specifically commends the parties' "excellent legal representation." Jim is currently representing iPCS on appeal. (iPCS Wireless, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., No. 05 CH 11792 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Ch. Div., Aug. 15, 2006); Horizon Personal Comms., Inc. v. Sprint Corp., No. Civ. A. 1518-N, 2006 WL 2337592 (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2006)).
Jim successfully defended AT&T in a complaint proceeding before the Kansas Corporation Commission, in which a competitor sought to increase the liquidated damages for certain wholesale "performance measures" long after the applicable contract had expired. The commission entered judgment in AT&T's favor. In a very thorough opinion, the Commission accepted AT&T's arguments that such an after-the-fact modification would be unlawful. In the Commission's words, "[t]he Commission declines Local Phone's invitation to take action that would be oppressive, arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious." Jim then helped AT&T successfully oppose the competitor's application for reconsideration.
Jim represented AT&T in concurrent cases before regulatory commissions in six states, serving as lead outside counsel in three states. The cases concerned (among other things) the implementation of landmark FCC rules regarding the extent to which AT&T would give competitors access to key elements of its network. The proceedings involved a large number and variety of complex issues and a large number of competing carriers. AT&T achieved favorable results on most of the contested issues, and subsequently prevailed on an additional contested issue in federal district court in Illinois.
Jim defended AT&T in five states, working in simultaneous proceedings governed by extremely tight deadlines, against expedited complaints before various state commissions, in which several competing carriers sought to compel AT&T to continue providing access in the wake of the FCC's 2005 holding that competing carriers were not entitled to obtain "unbundled" access to local switching and the "UNE Platform." AT&T received favorable rulings in four states; the result in the fifth state (Illinois) was affected by a unique state statute, which a federal court subsequently held to be preempted by federal law (see above).
Jim represented AT&T in obtaining state regulatory approvals of the merger between AT&T and BellSouth, and before that Jim represented SBC in obtaining state regulatory approvals of the merger between SBC and AT&T. All the required state-level approvals were obtained, and both mergers received final approval from the FCC.
Jim represented SBC in concurrent cases before regulatory commissions in 10 states regarding the extent to which SBC would be required to give competitors access to key elements of its network. When SBC prevailed in its challenge to the FCC rules on such access, Jim assisted SBC in the ensuing FCC rulemaking, using the evidentiary record developed in the states to show that competitors had ample alternatives to the SBC network. And when one state commission attempted to impose access requirements under the old rules, Jim represented SBC in federal court, and SBC obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction on the ground that the state order was preempted by federal law. (Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Lark, 373 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D. Mich. 2005)).
Jim successfully represented SBC in its challenges to state-imposed "remedy" plans that would have required SBC to make automatic payments to competitors and the state (totaling millions of dollars each month) for not meeting specified performance standards. In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Public Service Comm'n, 670 N.W.2d 97 (Wis. App. 2003), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the state plan constituted an unlawful "penalty" because it bore no connection to actual damages. In Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. ICC, 352 Ill. App. 3d 630 (3d Dist. 2004) and Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. ICC, 343 Ill. App. 3d 249 (3d Dist. 2003) the Illinois appellate court held that certain aspects of the state plan were preempted by federal law. Jim also represented SBC in evidentiary proceedings before the Illinois Commerce Commission to develop a more reasonable replacement plan.
Jim served as lead outside counsel to SBC in state commissions throughout the entire Midwest region in connection with SBC's efforts to gain approval for entry into the long distance market. All five states endorsed SBC's applications, and in the fall of 2003 the FCC gave final approval for SBC to provide long distance service in all five states.
Education:
Stanford Law School, JD, 1993; Order of the Coif; Senior Editor, Stanford Law Review, The University of Michigan, BBA, 1985; Phi Beta Kappa. |
