Houston; Washington, D.C. Office
Over his more than two decades as an attorney, Paul Stancil has developed deep experience in all aspects of antitrust practice. . . and theory.
As a practicing lawyer, Paul has represented some of the biggest names in the energy and tech industries, including Oracle, Reliant Energy, Transocean, Schlumberger, and Lyondell. He has also represented internet startups, healthcare providers, home service providers, construction contractors, chemical companies, and traditional manufacturers in all types of antitrust matters including civil and criminal litigation, agency conduct investigations, merger review, and advising.
But deep and broad practice experience is only part of Paul’s equation. He joined Orrick after serving as a tenured professor at two top-tier law schools and has published law-and-economics-driven academic articles on a variety of subjects in the Pennsylvania Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and other top journals. With over ten years of full-time private practice and more than a decade of academic service under his belt, Paul offers Orrick’s clients an unbeatable mix of real-world experience and theoretical mastery—an incredibly valuable combination in the current antitrust environment.
Paul’s theoretical background provides him with significant advantages when working both with and against expert witnesses, and he enjoys helping experts express their opinions clearly and effectively almost as much as he enjoys deconstructing opposing experts’ work.
While still working full-time as a professor, Paul recently represented a startup online travel company plaintiff in a successful antitrust suit brought against major international hotel chains in connection with branded keyword bidding restrictions. In that litigation, Paul and his co-counsel won a partial plaintiff’s summary judgment holding that the defendants’ alleged conduct was per se illegal.
Before joining Orrick full-time, Paul also supervised his law school’s Trial Advocacy program and he has extensive trial experience of his own. He believes that the best way to deliver results in litigation is to reason backward from trial, and he particularly enjoys the challenge inherent in communicating complicated economic and legal concepts to judges, juries, and regulators.