Caroline Simons

Partner

Boston


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Caroline is a trial lawyer who works to protect a company’s brand, its intellectual property, and its bottom line. Drawing upon her experience in investigations and IP & business litigation, Caroline deftly balances public perception with fiscal and legal responsibility, and approaches litigation always with the strategic goals of her clients in mind. Caroline also works closely with her clients to investigate issues that matter to their bottom line—whether it be theft of trade secrets, potential fraud, and misuse of funds—and seeks to resolve issues swiftly, ethically, and with minimal disruption to business operations. When further action is needed, she is ready to advise clients on litigation, government reporting and crisis management; helping them manage risk, fight back, recover, and move on.

In addition to her IP work, she has helped clients facing investigations or charges by state and federal prosecutors, as well as civil enforcement proceedings from regulatory agencies, such as the SEC. She has successfully defended clients against allegations of Hobbs Act extortion, public corruption, fraud, as well as violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the False Claims Act.

Caroline maintains an active pro bono practice. She has drafted amicus briefs in cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, worked on prisoner’s rights, domestic violence, and housing cases, and currently represents children in asylum proceedings in conjunction with Kids In Need of Defense (KIND). In 2013-14, Caroline was selected to serve in the Boston Bar Association’s Public Interest Leadership Program. In 2017, she was named an Up & Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. She currently serves as the co-chair of the Mentoring Committee for the BBA’s Diversity & Inclusion Section.

Posts by: Caroline Simons

In a Blockbuster Economic Espionage Act Prosecution, an Attempt by the Government to Hide the Ball?

An ongoing, headline-grabbing trade secret theft prosecution against a Chinese spy is also quietly presenting a, say, disquieting attempt by prosecutors to stretch the law on what it is required to plead and prove.  On the civil side, when a plaintiff sues for trade secret theft, there’s almost always a hotly contested point of proof on whether the alleged stolen material is really a trade secret.  It’s well-established, though, that when the government charges a defendant criminally with the inchoate forms of trade secret theft—attempt or conspiracy being the two spelled out under the Economic Espionage Act—the government has no burden to prove that the underlying information was actually a trade secret.  (Loyal readers will recall our recent post on United States v. O’Rourke, where the defendant tried to argue otherwise at sentencing.)  Now, in a brief filed just last week, the government seems to be taking this one step further and arguing that it has no duty even to identify the trade secrets at issue. READ MORE