Warrington Parker

Partner

San Francisco


Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Warrington S. Parker is a partner in Orrick's San Francisco office, and a member of the White Collar, Investigations, Securities Litigation & Compliance Group.

Warrington's practice involves the representation of clients in both civil and criminal matters. These matters typically include government involvement or claimed violations of state and federal regulations or statutes. Thus, Warrington has represented clients in False Claims Act matters, claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission, employment discrimination cases involving a federal research facility, allegations of fraud and breach of contract brought against a client by a state, and allegations that a school board inappropriately spent bond monies in violation of California law.

Warrington has conducted criminal and civil investigations, both nationally and internationally, including FCPA and financial irregularity investigations in China, Japan and India. Warrington has handled and managed state and federal civil cases from the filing of complaints to discovery and trial. Since joining Orrick in 2008, Warrington has tried two criminal cases and multiple civil cases. 

From 1992 to 1996, Warrington was Assistant United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California, Criminal Division in Los Angeles.

Before joining Orrick, Warrington was a shareholder at Heller Ehrman.

Posts by: Warrington Parker

Whistle While You Work?: First Court To Rule On DTSA’s Whistleblower Immunity Provision Treats It As An Affirmative Defense

The Defend Trade Secret Act (“DTSA”) contains a whistleblower immunity provision which could have a significant impact on employers. Until last month, however, no court had interpreted this provision which provides that no one “shall be held criminally or civilly liable under Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret” made in confidence to a government official or an attorney and “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b).  Now, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has.  In rejecting that assertion of the provision in a motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the party seeking the protections of the provision has the burden of at least asserting facts justifying its application. See Unum Group v. Loftus, No. 16-cv-40154-TSH, 2016 WL 7115967 (D. Mass. December 6, 2016). READ MORE