Christopher H. Casey

Christopher Casey represents manufacturers, insurance companies, governmental entities and individuals in civil and criminal litigation. He litigates matters involving antitrust, securities, contracts, fraud, and political corruption. He regularly defends his clients against federal and state criminal investigations and grand jury subpoenas, and requests for access to records under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law. 

Chris has tried both jury and non-jury cases to verdict in state and federal court, and has briefed and argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Pennsylvania Superior Court and Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. 

Before joining Dilworth, Chris served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for seven years. Prior to his work as a federal prosecutor he spent five and a half years as an antitrust litigator at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, where he focused on corporate mergers in the energy, health care, and telecommunications industries.

Representative Experience

• Represents indirect purchaser plaintiffs in federal multi-district antitrust class action in chocolate industry.
• Represents several health insurers in defending requests for information under Pennsylvania Right to Know Law.
• Won $2.5 million verdict for roofing manufacturer in breach of contract trial in Pennsylvania federal court.
• Won defense verdict after trial for satellite television installation company in contract litigation in Pennsylvania state court.
• Won defense verdict after trial for real estate developer in action for specific performance in Pennsylvania state court.
• Represents mushroom grower in antitrust class action in Pennsylvania federal court.
• Represents Pennsylvania House Democratic and Senate Caucuses on variety of governmental compliance issues.
• Represents manufacturer of waste water treatment equipment in defending bid-rigging investigation by Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
• Represents an individual in defending federal criminal tax investigation in New Jersey.
• Represented manufacturer of military cameras in defending enforcement action by Pennsylvania Securities Commission.
• Represented largest physician group in northeastern Pennsylvania in obtaining approval for merger from U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
• Represented wine distributor in defending breach of contract action in Pennsylvania federal court.
• Represented individual and corporation in federal criminal investigation of Philadelphia charter schools.  
• Represents bank in foreclosure action in Pennsylvania state court.

Professional & Community Activities

• Member, American Bar Association (Antitrust Section - Criminal Practice and Procedure Committee; Criminal Justice Section - White Collar Committee)
• Member, Philadelphia Bar Association (Criminal Justice Section)
• Assistant U.S. Attorney, Middle District of PA, 1999 - 2006
• Antitrust Litigator, Federal Trade Commission, 1990 - 1995
• Assistant Public Defender, Lackawanna County, PA, 1996 - 1999
• Federal Law Clerk, Middle District of PA, 1988 - 1989
• Member of Advisory Board, Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson University
• Member, Irish-American Business Chamber and Network
• Member, Brehon Law Society

Speeches & Presentations

• Presenter, "For the Experienced," Criminal Law CLE, "Advanced Jury Trial Advocacy Skills: Overcoming the Prosecution Forensic Expert," Gettysburg, PA, 2010
• Presenter, "Hospitals and Physicians on the Firing Line: Recent Enforcement of the False Claims Act", Mercy Hospital, Scranton, PA, 2007
• Presenter, "Merger Review Process at the FTC: Nuts and Bolts", Philadelphia Bar Association, Mergers and Acquisitions Committee, 2007

• Christopher Casey and Mark Wachlin Succeed In Ziegler Excavating Inc. Case

• Christopher H. Casey Named One of Philadelphia Magazine's "76 People to Watch"

• White Collar Legal Update: Dual Enforcement of Antitrust Laws Keeps Businesses in Line
• White Collar Legal Update: Will Recent Supreme Court Sentencing Decisions Help Or Hurt Antitrust Defendants?