Skip to content

As Co-Chair of Clark Hill’s Title IX and Campus Discipline practice, and with decades of experience in complex litigation matters, Patricia Hamill brings a strategic approach to each matter.  Her deep legal expertise is matched by her tenacity to push for best outcomes for her clients, and she never forgets that her clients need not only legal expertise but also empathy and support.  Patricia’s approach is captured perfectly by a client’s description of her as “an incredibly gifted lawyer who not only knows the detailed nuances of Title IX law and the university processes but also has the street smarts and toughness that only come from years of experience. Her calm, confident, and strategically aggressive style successfully guided our family through a difficult time.”

Patricia’s practice is nationwide.  She represents college students, faculty members, and administrators in campus disciplinary proceedings and in litigation following flawed disciplinary processes. She is a skillful negotiator who works to resolve matters without the need for litigation. When that is not possible, Patricia has been successful in bringing lawsuits around the nation for violations of Title IX (or other civil rights statutes), breach of contract and tort liability on the basis that colleges’ disciplinary processes failed to ensure fundamental due process rights, discriminated on the basis of sex and breached contractual obligations.

Patricia is a frequent speaker, commentator and writer on Title IX and is sought out by groups and institutions to share her knowledge and to advocate for how best to meet the needs of students and faculty in the ever-changing legal landscape involving Title IX case law and regulations. Given her expertise, she has testified before the Department of Education and was invited to testify on due process issues before the United States Senate’s hearing on “Reauthorizing HEA: Addressing Campus Sexual Assault and Ensuring Student Safety and Rights” in Washington DC (April 2019) (read the press release, read Patricia’s opening statement, or watch Patricia’s opening statement).

Outside of the firm’s Title IX and Campus Discipline practice, Patricia is a commercial litigator representing clients in complex commercial litigation in a variety of industries, including technology, insurance, and securities.


J.D., with honors, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, Maryland
B.A., Bryn Mawr College


The Legal Intelligencer Pennsylvania Legal Awards – Distinguished Leader (2024)

2023 National law Journal Employment & Discrimination Trailblazer

Chambers USA, Higher Education, 2024

Chambers USA, Litigation: General Commercial, 2019-2024

Testified before US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) at the full committee hearing on “Reauthorizing HEA: Addressing Campus Sexual Assault and Ensuring Student Safety and Rights” in Washington DC (April 2019) (read the press release, read Patricia’s written testimony, read Patricia’s opening statement, or watch Patricia’s opening statement).

Selected as a Leading Lawyer for General Commercial Litigation in Chambers USA, The Client’s Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business (2020-present); Recognized Practitioner (2019)

Listed as a “Local Litigation Star” in Benchmark Litigation, Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Attorneys

Named a 2019 Pennsylvania Trailblazer by The Legal Intelligencer for her legal work related to Title IX

Selected by The Legal Intelligencer as the recipient of its 2018 Power Player Award for her legal work related to Title IX

Selected as a Philadelphia Inquirer 2019 Influencer of Law Winner for Business Litigation

Named among The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation (2010-2024); Criminal Defense: White-Collar (2020-2024) by Best Lawyers

AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Listed as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2010–present)

Listed on the Top 50: Women Pennsylvania Super Lawyers List (2019-present)

Listed on the Top 100: Philadelphia Super Lawyers List (2022)

State Bar Licenses


Court Admissions

U.S. District Ct., E.D. of Pennsylvania
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit


Title IX & Campus Discipline

  • Represented a male student who was disciplined on sexual misconduct charges, and brought litigation in federal court against Brandeis University. The court’s comprehensive decision denying the University’s motion to dismiss vindicated our client when the court found “that Brandeis denied [the student] the ‘basic fairness’ to which he was entitled,” and also opined “Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” The ruling (Doe v. Brandeis University, No. 2:14-cv-532, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43499 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2016) has been cited in virtually every lawsuit subsequently filed by an accused student and hailed by many as one of the most far-reaching decisions supporting student rights and for its advocacy of common sense and fairness in the handling of campus disciplinary matters. (See, for example: “Denying Due Process” (chapter 4) in The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson, and “The Campus Sex-Crime Tribunals are Losing,” The Commentary Magazine, September 8, 2017, KC Johnson.) The case was also cited by the Department of Education in its September 2017 Guidance withdrawing the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and the 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.
  • Achieved a favorable settlement for a student who was expelled shortly before the end of his senior year. His college concluded our client had participated in live streaming a consensual sexual encounter between two other students, though even the alleged female victim told the college he was not involved. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the college in violation of Title IX, concluding it had not provided our client (or other accused male students) with essential procedural protections and had not followed the safeguards provided for in its own disciplinary policies and procedures. Faced with a potential federal lawsuit, the college agreed to make a substantial monetary payment, vacate the finding of responsibility and sanctions against our client, and give him a clean record.
  • Represented a male, African-American student at the University of Pennsylvania who was wrongly accused of sexual assault and subjected to an unfair, biased, and discriminatory disciplinary process. Filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the University of Pennsylvania in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting claims under Title IX and Title VI, as well as common law claims for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court denied in part the University’s motion to dismiss, allowing our client to proceed on claims for breach of contract and Title IX violations. This matter was subsequently resolved. Doe v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-05088, 2017 WL 4049033 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2017).
  • Represented a male student against a public university alleging denial of the student’s due process rights, in large part because the university delayed close to a year in initiating a disciplinary hearing to address a misconduct claim against the student, a delay that resulted in the departure from campus of key witnesses. The student had completed his coursework and earned his degree, yet the university withheld his degree as it had not completed its disciplinary process. Attorneys argued that the delay violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The case settled after argument on Doe’s motion for preliminary injunction and the University’s motion to dismiss.
  • Represented a male student in litigation against a college challenging the result of a sexual misconduct disciplinary finding. Following the court’s finding that the college’s disciplinary process was flawed, the court reversed the college’s decision against our client. We then successfully moved the court to rule that the college could not retry our client in a new proceeding based on the amount of time that had passed since the original decision and the fact that witnesses had graduated and were no longer available. The court entered an order precluding the college from bringing any further disciplinary actions against our client and further ordered the college to completely expunge his record.
  • Represented a male student in litigation against a private university near Chicago, challenging the result of the sexual misconduct disciplinary finding that resulted in the student’s extended exclusion from the university and which required reapplication without a guarantee of re-admission and with a permanent disciplinary notation on his record. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court and asserted violations of Title IX and breach of contract. The case settled within five months of filing the complaint.
  • Represented a male student in litigation challenging Rider University’s Title IX proceeding finding our client responsible for sexual assault. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court and asserted violations of Title IX and breach of contract based on allegations that the University investigation and adjudication was flawed and biased against male respondents. We successfully overcame two motions to dismiss, where the Court ruled that our client brought a valid breach of contract claim and a valid Title IX claim. The case resolved via settlement.
  • Attorneys were successful in obtaining a ruling in California state court ordering the University of Southern California to set aside the suspension and expulsion of our client, a male student, for alleged nonconsensual sexual activity with two female students who claimed to have been too intoxicated to give consent. The California Superior Court issued a decision finding that USC failed to provide a fair hearing to our client and that the decisions to suspend and expel him were not supported by the evidence. The court reasoned that USC denied John his due process rights to a fair proceeding under California state law because (among other shortcomings) it did not provide him with “an adequate opportunity … to test the credibility of the material witnesses in a limited adversarial hearing before the decision is made” (see Statement of Decision Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate). Doe v. Ainsley Carry and University of Southern California, Case No. BS 161569 (Los Angeles County Superior Ct., Sept. 15, 2017 unpublished decision).
  • Brought action against Swarthmore College on behalf of a student expelled in the wake of a disciplinary proceeding following allegations of sexual misconduct. Brought litigation in federal district court, asserting claims under Title IX as well as common law claims, including breach of contract. Swarthmore vacated its college judiciary panel’s findings and sanction after additional information became available that both parties believed raised questions about the impartiality of the panel that heard our client’s case and the fairness of the hearing process and the matter settled. Doe v. Swarthmore College, No. 2:14-cv-000532 (E.D. Pa.).

Commercial Litigation

Patricia has spent more than 20 years appearing in federal and state courts throughout the country, representing Fortune 500 companies to successfully defend consumer fraud and securities class action lawsuits as well as other complex commercial litigation. Patricia also routinely represents her corporate clients in business-to-business litigation and has substantial experience in successfully representing companies in False Claims Act and other whistleblower litigation.

  • Represented Hewlett-Packard and HP Financial Services Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a breach of contract and warranty action arising out of the installation of various storage-related products and software. After initial motion practice, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed HP Financial Services Company, and the case successfully settled before HP incurred significant discovery costs.
  • Represented a startup company that developed online and mobile products for the management of diabetes and other chronic medical conditions in a breach of contract action against a global pharmaceutical company known for its insulin products. Our client and the pharmaceutical company had closely partnered for a number of years to develop, publicize and explore the market for our client’s products with the goal of the pharmaceutical company purchasing our client. The pharmaceutical company abruptly terminated the relationship on the eve of finalizing the purchase agreement, leaving our client without future funding and facing destruction of its business. Following initial motion practice for a preliminary injunction, the pharmaceutical company agreed to a settlement that allowed our client to continue its business operations.
  • Obtained summary judgment for a technology client in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit arising out of our client’s participation in a consortium to offer services and technology to a school district in connection with the federal E-rate program. Three consortium members sued our client in Texas state court alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and other claims. Our client moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, and after oral argument, the judge granted summary judgment from the bench, and that decision was affirmed on appeal.

Class Action

  • Consumer Class Action. Represented an international bank sued in a federal district court in New Jersey in a class action that alleged improprieties in the company’s assessment of late fees on equipment leases; after filing a motion to dismiss, convinced the putative class to dismiss its claims voluntarily.
  • Consumer Class Action. Represented a debt management company in a consumer class action relating to claims arising under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and unfair trade practices statutes. Secured a favorable settlement for our client after initial motion practice.
  • Insurance. Represented three AEGON companies in long-running putative consumer class action suits in New Mexico state court in which plaintiffs sought nationwide certification for alleged breach of contract and failure to disclose modal premium charges.  Achieved success for our clients in all three cases. The plaintiffs in two of the cases voluntarily dismissed their nationwide putative class actions after initial motion practice, Cadigan v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., No. D-101-CV-99-2619, and after we filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, Wodzinski v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co., No. D-101-CV-2000-2816.  In the third case, after extensive briefing and multiple oral arguments on the issues related to nationwide class certification, the parties agreed to a settlement of the case, limiting the class to a small pool comprising only New Mexico residents.
  • Insurance. Represented People’s Benefit Life Insurance Company in Pennsylvania state court in a national consumer class action.  The putative class claimed the insurer had breached contractual and fiduciary duties when it calculated the death benefits owed on variable annuity products.  Class certification denied.


  • Served as the Interim Monitor of an affordable housing cooperative in Philadelphia in connection with an action pending in the Commerce Court program of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, arising from a dispute amongst its Board Members. Over the course of the Monitorship, Patricia, her attorneys and staff worked to stabilize the property, resume monthly rent and carrying charge collection, resume payment of monthly utilities, manage the property and make arrangements for necessary and/or emergency repairs, secure and maintain necessary insurance coverages, negotiate with various creditors on outstanding balances and debts, manage various department of licensing and inspection and taxation issues involving the City of Philadelphia, and attempt to secure property management and/or a suitable contractor qualified to take steps necessary to allow for the resumption of Housing and Urban Development subsidies. After the parties reached a tentative settlement-in-principal with regard to the plans for management and control of the community, the Interim Monitorship was ended by Court Order.
  • Serves as the court-appointed receiver, with Conrad O’Brien attorneys acting as counsel, in an action brought by the FTC against entities in the technical support services industry who are alleged to have misrepresented their services to tens of thousands of customers who paid at least $17.9 million for the allegedly fraudulent services. As receiver, Patricia was tasked with taking control of the business operations of corporate defendants and securing two separate physical locations, several virtual offices, and numerous financial accounts, websites, and phone numbers. She continues to preserve and administer the assets of the receivership estate.
  • Serves as the court-appointed receiver, with Conrad O’Brien attorneys acting as lead counsel, in an action brought by the FTC in federal court in the Western District of New York, against entities and individuals in the debt collections industry found to be conducting business in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Act (FDCA) and related state statutes. The FTC determined that an excess of $8 million was collected by the agencies from individual consumers using unlawful practices. Patricia and her counsel worked in conjunction with the government to assess the nature of the agencies’ practices; halt all collection activities; manage the remaining operations of the agencies; handle a variety of employment, payroll, and tax issues; collect, analyze, and respond to a variety of claims made against the agencies; and worked with forensic accountants to recover and maximize the assets of the receivership.
  • Represented the court-appointed receiver in an SEC enforcement action in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the operator of a Ponzi-like scheme who stole tens of millions of dollars from investors in hedge funds he managed. Through actions or threatened actions against company insiders, accountants, and “net winner” investors, recovered and restored to innocent investors nearly 80% of the funds invested.
  • Represented the receiver in an enforcement action brought by the FTC in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against a number of related telemarketing businesses alleged to have been involved in the national marketing of fraudulent credit cards. The case settled with the defendant business operators for more than $7.5 million, providing nearly 100% restitution to the victims.
  • Represented a federally-appointed receiver in an enforcement action brought by the federal government in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a third-party payment processing company and its principals, who were alleged to have facilitated a nationwide fraudulent telemarketing scheme. Successfully recovered over $1 million from a national bank to fund a Consumer Restitution Program for victims of the fraud. Our efforts against the bank uncovered information that launched further government action, resulting in the recovery of more than $150 million to fund a full restitution program for the victims.

Insurance Litigation

  • Presently represent an insurer in federal district court litigation alleging that plaintiffs, a small business and its owner, were induced to enter an employee welfare benefit plan and purchase cash-value life insurance policies based on misrepresentations concerning tax benefits. Plaintiffs have alleged claims under ERISA (§419), RICO, and state law against the individuals and entities involved in developing, selling, and administering the plan, as well as against the insurer that issued the policy. In a related case, the Department of Labor has separately filed a civil enforcement action against the plan fiduciaries.
  • Represented, for the past two decades, numerous insurers nationwide in both state and federal courts in consumer-related class action litigation involving sales practices, product pricing, product disclosures, and rate increases, as well as business-to-business litigation and significant claims.

Securities Litigation

  • Represented an insurance holding company against three separate putative class actions asserting direct and derivative claims in state and federal court, in connection with a proposed merger valued at approximately $220 million. Each of the lawsuits sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote and prevent the merger from closing. Filed motions to dismiss the state actions and negotiated a standstill agreement with the federal plaintiff pending the results of the state lawsuits. Negotiated a favorable global settlement of all three lawsuits that did not alter the merger consideration and allowed the merger to go forward on its original timetable.
  • Represented a former officer of a medical equipment financing company in proceedings that arose after the company filed for bankruptcy. The proceedings included lawsuits and class actions by the bankruptcy trustee, shareholders, bondholders and financial institutions, and investigations by the SEC and the Department of Justice. The DOJ declined prosecution and, after a lengthy Wells process, the SEC declined to pursue an enforcement action against our client. Two of the civil cases were settled with a minimal contribution from our client, and class action shareholder plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss our client with no monetary settlement.
  • Represented a former interim chief financial officer for a startup company that was alleged to have operated the largest green-energy Ponzi scheme in the United States. A class action and a parallel civil action filed by the receiver for the startup company asserted various claims against the former CFO along with other professionals associated with the company. In addition to defending against those actions, Patricia also assisted the former CFO in a coverage dispute with multiple insurers. Patricia secured coverage and obtained a global settlement agreement resolving both lawsuits without any payments from the former interim CFO.
  • Represented the chief financial officer of a bankrupt subprime lender in a federal securities class action and state court litigation in Pennsylvania. Successfully settled the federal and state cases, negotiating on our client’s behalf with the D&O insurance carrier to pay the settlement amounts.
  • Represented a FINRA registered representative in civil and regulatory proceedings related to his former employment. Successfully defended our client both in the civil liability proceedings and in a separate insurance coverage declaratory relief action. On the regulatory side, advised the client through all phases of the FINRA investigation, including negotiating on the client’s behalf a disposition of the matter involving no payment of restitution, disgorgement, or any fines.

White Collar & Internal Investigations

Patricia represents, counsels, and conducts internal investigations for clients who face potential criminal liability from federal and state grand jury investigations. In counseling clients on preventative strategies and compliance, she has helped companies avoid litigation, scrutiny, and substantial penalties time and time again. Patricia is equally comfortable with both the civil and criminal issues that inevitably arise in such representations, and she is an effective negotiator who works hard to avoid criminal exposure for her clients and to minimize any potential civil liability.

  • Represented an investment advisor firm with $800 million of assets under management in connection with a three-year SEC investigation. The client faced $3 million in alleged disgorgement payments and penalties, and various charges including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; three officers were facing a five-year bar. Patricia successfully convinced the SEC to forego a Wells process, and the case settled on the basis of a negligent breach of fiduciary duty, with the investment advisor firm paying less than 1% of the original disgorgement sought and the company’s CEO paying a modest fine without being barred or suspended.
  • Worked closely with our client, a worldwide technology company, and its compliance department, in-house counsel, and business executives to assist our client in fulfilling its responsibilities under a 3-year federal compliance agreement negotiated with the FCC in the wake of a government investigation.



Patricia is a frequent speaker and presenter regionally and nationally on Title IX litigation and complex commercial litigation.

  • “The New Title IX Regulations: A 360 View Through the Lens of Higher Education 2024,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Webinar; June 2024.
  • Co-Presenter, “Balanced Attention to Respondents: Understanding Procedural Due Process Considerations and Approaches to Respondent Resources (with an emphasis on Title IX processes)”
  • Legal Issues in Higher Education Conference, October 2023 .
  • Co-Presenter, “Title IX Over Time: Obama to Trump to Biden,” Higher Education Consultants Association, June 14, 2023.
  • Co-Presenter, “Title IX Over Time: Keeping Up with the Changes,” PNACAC, RMACAC, and WACAC SuperConference, April 16, 2023.
  • Panelist on “Title IX Updates & The Impact of Dobbs,” Rutgers Law School; November 2022.
  • Panelist on “Current Title IX Issues,” Eighth Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault on College and University Campuses; Washington DC; November 2022.
  • “Reviewing the Department of Education’s Proposed Title IX Regulations,” American Bar Association Virtual Panel; October 2022.
  • “The Title IX Landscape in Higher Ed 2022,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Webinar; August 2022.
  • “The Title IX Landscape: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?,” PACDL (Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) Webinar; July 2022.
  • “The New Regulations: Tips and Strategies,” Seventh Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault on College and University Campuses; Washington DC; October 2021.
  • “The Title IX Landscape: Where Are We Now?,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Webinar; June 2021.
  • “Title IX Today, and Facing a New Administration,” FACE (Families Advocating for Campus Equality), A Virtual Panel Experience for Students and Families; February 2021.
  • “The New OCR Regulations Update,” Sixth Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault; Virtual; October 2020.
  • “The New Title IX Regulations: How Not to Get Sued – Best Practices and Lessons to Apply from Title IX Respondent Litigation,” ATIXA 2020 Virtual Annual Conference; October 2020.
  • “The New Title IX Regulations: A New Era,” DC Bar Association Webinar; August 2020.
  • “The Department of Education’s New Title IX Regulations: A Closer Look,” American Bar Association Webinar; July 2020.
  • “The Title IX Regulations: A New Era,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Webinar; May 2020.
  • “Title IX & Online Harassment in the COVID-19 Era: What You Need to Know;” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Webinar; April 2020.
  • “How to Avoid a Title IX Lawsuit;” University of South Florida Title IX Conference; Tampa, FL; February 2020.
  • Video training in “20 Minutes To…Trained: Advising the Responding Party;” ATIXA web-based sexual misconduct training series; June 2019.
  • Panelist on “Balancing the Scales in the Face of Political Turmoil;” Seventh Annual Rowan University Title IX Summit; Glassboro, NJ; June 2019.
  • “The Changing Landscape of Title IX: How Regulations and Case Law Have Impacted Policies and Procedure;” Seventh Annual Rowan University Title IX Summit; Glassboro, NJ; June 2019.
  • “The New Title IX Regulations and Their Expected Impact,” Philadelphia Bar Association, Education Law Committee; Philadelphia, PA; May 2019.
  • “Title IX in the Employment Context: Representing Faculty and Staff Accused of Sexual Misconduct,” PBI Employment Law Institute; Philadelphia, PA; April 2019.
  • “The Proposed OCR Regulations: What’s New?,” Fifth Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault; Washington DC; April 2019.
  • “Litigation Basics,” Fifth Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault pre-conference; Washington DC; April 2019.
  • Testifying witness before US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) at the full committee hearing on “Reauthorizing HEA: Addressing Campus Sexual Assault and Ensuring Student Safety and Rights;” Washington DC; April 2, 2019(read the press release, read Patricia’s written testimony, read Patricia’s opening statement, or watch Patricia’s opening statement).
  • Participant at JAMS “Title IX Training and Update” program: co-presenter on “Trauma” and panelist on “Impact of Recent Guidance, Proposed Regulations and Court Decisions on Claimants, Respondents and Schools;” Washington DC; March 2019.
  • Interviewed on Roll Call’s “CQ on Congress” Podcast, “#MeToo reconsidered: One feminist on equalizing campus sexual assault rules;” February 2019 (listen to the full interview here).
  • Panelist on “Sexual Molestation and Harassment Claims in the #Metoo Era,” Cozen O’Connor Global P&C Claims Think Tank Conference; New York, NY; October 2018.
  • Interviewed on “The World and Everything In It” Podcast, the “Legal Docket” Segment; August 2018 (listen to the full interview or read the transcript of the podcast here).
  • Panelist on “Taking Stock of Title IX: The Past, Present, and Future of Campus Sexual Misconduct Regulation,” American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice; Teleforum; July 2018 (full teleforum available here, hear Patricia speak beginning at minute 37).
  • “How to Avoid a Title IX Lawsuit,” Sixth Annual Rowan University Title IX Summit; Glassboro, NJ; June 2018.
  • ‘”Title IX Legal Update in the Devos Era:  What’s New (If Anything)?,” Cape Institute (CLE on “#MeToo, #TimesUp, Clumsy or Criminal, A Look At the New Rules of Romance in Life and College”); Swarthmore, PA; April 2018.
  • Panelist on “Social & Professional Etiquette & The #metoo Movement,” Rutgers Law School; Camden, NJ; March 2018.
  • “Expert Witnesses in Title IX Litigation,” Fourth Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault; Washington, DC; March 2018.
  • “Lessons Learned and Best Practices from A Title IX Respondent’s Attorney,“ Chicagoland Title IX Consortium; Chicago, IL; February 2018.
  • “The Best Possible Outcome: Settlement Agreements in the Title IX Context” and “The Advisor’s Wish List: Best Practices for Fairer Title IX Proceedings,” FACE (“Families Advocating for Campus Equality”) 2017 Fall Meet & Greet; Dallas, TX; November 2017.
  • “Representing Disciplined Students in Subsequent Litigation Against Colleges and Universities,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Fall Meeting & Seminar; Boston, MA; October 2017.
  • “How Not to Get Sued: Lessons Learned and Best Practices Gleaned from Title IX Respondent Litigation,” ATIXA (Association of Title IX Coordinators)/SCOPE (School and College Organization for Pennsylvania Educators) Joint National Conference; Philadelphia, PA; October 2017.
  • “Regulation Reform: Public Hearings on Title IX Regulations and Guidance,” Public Comment before the Department of Education; Washington, DC; October 4, 2017.
  • “How to Prevent a Title IX Lawsuit: Preventative Measures Universities Can Take,” 2nd Annual Title IX ExecuSummit; Uncasville, CT; July 2017.
  • “Informal Discussion of Settlements: What is Possible?” Lycurgus Group, LLC, Third Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault; Washington, DC; February 2017.
  • “Evolving Case Law on Title IX Civil Litigation: The Changing Landscape,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Higher Education Conference; Philadelphia, PA; November 2016.
  • “Whether ‘tis Nobler…: How Recent Student Lawsuits Have Fared in the Courts,” ATIXA (Association of Title IX Coordinators)/SCOPE (School and College Organization for Pennsylvania Educators) Joint National Conference; Philadelphia, PA; October 2016.
  • “The View from the Trenches: Stories from a Title IX Respondent’s Attorney,” University of South Florida Title IX Summit; Tampa, FL; September 2016.
  • “Defending the Campus Sexual Misconduct Case: Strategies for Handling Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers webinar; July 2016.
  • “How to Avoid a Title IX Lawsuit by the Accused Student,” Rowan University Title IX Summit; Stratford, NJ; June 2016.
  • “How to Avoid a Title IX Lawsuit,” Second Annual Symposium on Representing Students Accused of Sexual Assault; Washington, DC; February 2016.
  • “Major in English for Love and Money,” Bryn Mawr College Alumnae Presentation; Bryn Mawr, PA; February 2016.
  • Panel Moderator, Lunch with Judge Ramy I. Djerassi, Philadelphia Bar Association, Business Law Section, Business Litigation Committee; Philadelphia, PA; October 2015.
  • “How to Avoid a Title IX Lawsuit, ATIXA/SCOPE Joint National Conference; Philadelphia, PA; October 2015.
  • “Title IX Litigation Case Update,” PBI Higher Education Conference; Philadelphia, PA; June 2015.
  • “Settlement Agreements in the Title IX Context: Key Components and a Wish List,” Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) Spring Meeting; Washington, DC; April 2015.
  • “Getting Your Evidence in at Trial and Using It Effectively in a Business Case,” American Bar Association Business Law Section Spring Meeting; San Francisco, CA; April 2015.
  • “Yes Means Yes: The Latest on Title IX and Sexual Assault,” Cape Institute; August 2015, April 2015, and December 2014.
  • “Tips from the Trenches: Effectively Representing Students in Campus Sexual Misconduct Proceedings and Related Litigation,” First Annual Symposium on Navigating Due Process and Title IX Issues in Campus Sexual Assault Procedures; Washington, DC; October 2014.
  • “Cyber Security and Data Breaches: The Legal Landscape,” Sixth Annual American Bar Association’s National Institute on Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel, April 2014.
  • “Federal Tax Considerations in the Administration of a Receivership,” Annual Conference of the National Association of Federal Equity Receivers (NAFER); September 2013.
  • Moderator, “How to Effectively Address Data Breaches,” ABA Fifth Annual National Institute on Internal Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel; April 2013.
  • “Enforcement, Disclosure, and Global Compliance Expectations: FCPA, the UK Bribery Act and Beyond,” U.S.–Ireland Legal Symposium, October 2012.
  • “What Every Transactional Lawyer Needs to Know About Doing Business with the Public Sector,” Greater Philadelphia Association of Corporate Counsel (DELVACCA); September 2011.
  • “What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About the Refocused SEC,” DELVACCA In-House Counsel Conference; April 2011.
  • “How to Conduct an Effective Internal Corporate Investigation: Avoid the Many Landmines,” DELVACCA In-House Counsel Conference; May 2010.