Skip to Content


Scott Abeles is a seasoned trial lawyer and appellate advocate with a particular focus on high-stakes antitrust and class action matters. With deep experience in each stage of the litigation life cycle — and having handled appeals in almost every federal circuit and before the U.S. Supreme Court — he counsels clients from complaint to trial through appeal.

Scott has significant experience in all manner of antitrust actions, including monopolization, restraint of trade, price discrimination, and merger review. Among those cases, Scott successfully defended a major automaker in a high-profile antitrust trial brought under the rarely invoked Robinson-Patman Act, with the jury delivering a complete victory to his client after less than a day of deliberation.

Scott has also represented technology and media clients in complex commercial litigation, and Fortune and Global 500 companies in matters involving cutting-edge issues of competition, constitutional, and administrative law. His casework includes the development of the winning argument in a case deemed the “U.S. Patent Case of the Year” by a leading publication; service as lead counsel for a coalition of Middle Eastern professionals in a case given the Outstanding Achievement Award in Public Accommodations Law by a major civil rights organization; and the securing of the largest individual customer award by a FINRA arbitration panel in 2018.

Outside the courtroom, Scott has lectured and published frequently, serving as a member of the Law360 Competition editorial advisory board, authoring chapters of several antitrust treatises, and appearing in numerous publications. He has been selected for inclusion in Washington, D.C., Super Lawyers and, before that, named to the Rising Stars list on numerous occasions.


  • Duncan v. Wells Fargo Advisors: Counsel to former Office Max/Supervalu CEO in widely reported FINRA arbitration. Following three-week hearing, panel awarded client $8.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and legal fees.
  • Bi v. McAuliffe: Counsel to 32 Chinese investors alleging $17 million fraud involving ex-Virginia governor and others relating to federal EB-5 program.
  • Mathew v. Chrysler: Counsel to Chrysler in $5 million price discrimination claim brought by a dealer; obtained a complete victory following a two-week jury trial.
  • Castro v. Sanofi: Counsel to Sanofi Pasteur in $1.5 billion nationwide antirust class action. Conducted Daubert hearing, deposed experts, argued many motions, managed case, drafted briefs.
  • In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation: Counsel to Markit in nationwide class action alleging concerted refusal to deal. Case manager and brief writer.
  • Utility Air Reg. Group v. EPA: Counsel of record to Nobel Prize-winning economists as amici curiae before U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Briggs & Stratton v. Kohler: Counsel to Briggs in monopolization case filed by competitor concerning “bundled rebates.”
  • U.S. v. Infineon; Rambus v. Infineon: Counsel to Infineon Technologies in criminal and civil cases relating to alleged price-fixing conspiracy in DRAM market.
  • Washington Gas Light Co. v. DCPSC: Lead counsel to Washington Gas in appeal challenging regulatory sanction. Drafted all briefs and argued successful appeal.
  • Tafas v. Dudas: Counsel to GSK in challenge to PTO rules. Federal Circuit affirmed holding that key rule challenged was unlawful; case named “Patent Case of the Year.”


Professional & Community Involvement

  • Alexandria Commission for the Arts

Speaking Engagements

  • "Wading Through the 'Dense Undergrowth of Confusion' – What You Really Need to Know to Comply With the Robinson-Patman Act," Bloomberg BNA (2017)
  • ABA Corporate Counseling Committee Monthly Antitrust Update (2016)
  • Antitrust Insights Seminar 2016 (2016)



  • Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., magna cum laude, 2003)
  • George Washington University (B.A., 1994)

Bar Admissions

Court Admissions


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.