Richard G. Parker

Gibson Dunn (Washington)
Lawyer (Partner)

Richard Parker is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a member of the Firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group. Mr. Parker is a leading antitrust lawyer who has successfully represented clients before both enforcement agencies and the courts. As a trial lawyer and an antitrust regulatory lawyer, Mr. Parker has been involved in many major antitrust representations, including merger clearance cases, cartel matters, class actions, and government civil investigations. He has extensive experience representing clients in matters before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. His experience in high-profile merger matters have earned him high honors, including being recognized by Chambers USA as a leading Lawyer in Antitrust, by Global Competition Review as “Litigator of the Week” and as a finalist for “Lawyer of the Year”, by the Legal Times, Best Lawyers in America, Lawdragon, and by Super Lawyers Magazine as one of the “Top 100 Washington, DC Lawyers”. Mr. Parker also was included on Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” list. Mr. Parker joins the firm from O’Melveny & Myers where he served as co-chair of the Antitrust and Competition Practice. From 1998 to 2001, he served as the Senior Deputy Director and then as Director of the Bureau of Competition at the FTC.

Distinctions

Linked authors

O’Melveny & Myers (Los Angeles)
O’Melveny & Myers (Los Angeles)
ESSEC Business School (Cergy)
British Competition Authority - CMA (London)
Gibson Dunn (New York)
Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider (New York)
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Washington)
DLA Piper (Singapore)

Articles

448 Bulletin

Katrina Robson, Maryanne S. Kane, Mimi Vu, Randall W. Edwards, Richard G. Parker The US District Court of New Jersey rules that the Federal Trade Commission can pursue claims against a company for failure to have adequate data security (Wyndham Worldwide)

75

Issue In a decision that is likely to result in increased federal enforcement actions against companies that suffer data security breaches but are found not to have taken sufficient steps to protect the data, a federal court on April 7, 2014, upheld the authority of the Federal Trade (...)

Kenneth R. O’Rourke, Richard G. Parker, Stephen McIntyre The US Supreme Court holds that reverse-payment patent settlements should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis)

281

But Decision Raises as Many Questions as it Answers The Supreme Court yesterday held that it may be unlawful under the antitrust laws for a brand-name drug manufacturer to resolve patent litigation against an allegedly infringing generic drug maker by paying the generic to forestall market (...)

445 Review

Send a message