Relationships. Commitment. Results.

icon Careers

Antitrust Regulation


Walter Haverfield’s antitrust attorneys offer proactive counsel to help our clients identify — and avoid — potential competition issues before they become crises. When problems do develop, our wealth of antitrust and competition legal experience within your industry, supported by our full-service firm approach, is here to help you or your company.

Practice Group Leader

Mark S. Fusco, Chair

Send a message

Our Antitrust Regulation Difference

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in antitrust litigation. This type of suit threatens triple-damage jury awards, multi-million dollar fines, and potential incarceration, and it must be taken seriously. Walter Haverfield’s antitrust attorneys have tackled these challenges for decades, and we draw on our wealth of experience to help you or your company respond properly to:

We also recognize that unfair competition law presents a parallel set of challenges. Our full-service firm approach provides intellectual property attorneys who are focused on keeping a level playing field between competitors. Our counsel includes:


Our litigation attorneys in our Cleveland and Columbus offices are consistently ranked and recognized by Best Lawyers®, Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, and more. At Walter Haverfield, we pride ourselves on becoming each client’s trusted advisor for all their litigation needs.


  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Banking and Finance Law
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Commercial Litigation
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Litigation – Labor and Employment
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Litigation – Real Estate
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Litigation – Trust & Estates
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 1: Real Estate Law
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 2: Construction Law
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 2: Criminal Defense: White-Collar
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 2: Litigation – Environmental
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 2: Mergers and Acquisitions Law
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 3: Bet-the-Company Litigation
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 3: Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
  • METROPOLITAN TIER 3: Litigation – Construction


  • Obtaining dismissal of monopolization claims against a local municipality
  • Defending a criminal antitrust matter to a jury involving charges of price-fixing and market allocation by scrap metal suppliers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
  • Representing a manufacturer of metal-wood golf clubs in antitrust claims against a major competing manufacturer, obtaining a favorable settlement from a competing manufacturer
  • Resolving a price discrimination claim brought against a major manufacturer of telecommunications equipment by one of its local distributors
  • Evaluating the antitrust implications of a proposed contract between two competing suppliers of health care products
  • Coordinating the response of target and non-target individuals and companies to grand jury subpoenas issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
  • Preventing former employee of a high-tech client from maintaining a position with a competitor in violation of the non-competition agreement
  • Litigating and negotiating the resolution of various business tort claims relative to employee non-compete covenants brought against a competitor by a bankrupt health care services company
  • Obtaining temporary restraining order and injunction against a former employee under a non-competition agreement
  • Drafting non-competition and confidentiality agreements for clients
  • Pursuing Lanham Act claims on behalf of clients whose intellectual property rights were being infringed upon by competitors passing off counterfeit goods
  • Enforcing a non-competition agreement on behalf of a national ink manufacturer against a former sales representative who had accepted employment with a competitor
  • Drafting non-competition and confidentiality agreements for clients with highly paid managerial employees and commissioned salespeople
  • Defending a welding equipment supply company regarding a Lanham Act unfair trade practice action in federal court
  • Obtaining favorable resolution for an employee whose employer sought and obtained a temporary restraining order under a non-competition agreement