Brian J. Paul

Partner, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Brian J. Paul is an appellate lawyer and leads law teams in high-stakes commercial litigation. He has briefed and argued everything from weighty abstract constitutional issues to dollars-and-cents business issues and everything in-between, both on appeal and in trial courts around the country. A member of the American Law Institute, recent past-president of the Seventh Circuit Bar Association and top-tier ranked Chambers appellate lawyer, Brian had one client say about him: “Brian is one of the most respected and skilled appellate lawyers, not only in Indianapolis but across the country. He is trusted to deliver timely guidance on complex issues.” Another said: “He is excellent. I enjoyed working with him. He is able to put things into layman’s terms and explains things really well. His written and oral advocacy are short, crisp and to the point.”

Clients hire Brian to digest the complex, and make the complex simple and compelling for busy, generalist judges. In his writing, he strives to cut through jargon and legalese, and distill things down to what’s important. In his oral advocacy, by intense preparation, he strives to be the advocate whom judges trust for the right answers. In the dozens of cases he has argued, Brian has helped clients win on both sides of the “v.” His recent representations include:

AXIS Ins. Co. v. Am. Specialty Ins. & Risk Servs., No. 23-1698, 2024 WL 3665333, ___ F.4th ___ (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). Representing AXIS Insurance Co., Brian obtained a reversal of an adverse summary judgment ruling in a case holding that the parties' indemnification contract neither expressly nor impliedly obligated the indemnitee to tender a defense to the indemnitor before settling claims against the indemnitee.
Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 99 F.4th 378 (7th Cir. 2024). Representing AT&T Services, Inc., and DirectTV, LLC, Brian successfully defended a favorable summary judgment ruling in a case involving alleged discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a jury could reasonably find that the defendants' decision not to pay broadcast retransmission fees for the rights to carry two Indianapolis-based television stations reflected anything other than lawful business choices responsive to dynamics of the television broadcast market.
Wells v. Freeman Co., 94 F.4th 608 (7th Cir. 2024). Representing The Freeman Company, Brian successfully defended a favorable summary judgment ruling in a Title VII case holding that the plaintiff could not sue for sexual harassment because she was not the company’s employee, but instead an independent contractor.
Mellowitz v. Ball State Univ., 221 N.E.3d 1214 (Ind. 2023). Representing Ball State University, Brian successfully defended the constitutionality of a state law that barred class actions seeking refunds of tuition and fees based on the university’s cancellation of in-person classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) and Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 24 F.4th 638 (7th Cir. 2022). Representing Indiana University, Brian successfully defended the constitutionality of the school’s COVID vaccine mandate policy.
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Finnerty, 191 N.E.3d 211 (Ind. 2022). Representing the NCAA, Brian secured the reversal of a discovery ruling that would have allowed high-ranking executives to be deposed without any consideration of their unique role in the organization.
Westwood One Radio Networks, LLC v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 172 N.E.3d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Representing the NCAA, Brian successfully beat back a request for an injunction preventing the Association from terminating an exclusive radio broadcast agreement.
Reid Hosp. & Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Sols., LLC, 8 F.4th 642 (7th Cir. 2021). Representing Reid Hospital & Health Care Services, Brian secured the reversal of a summary judgment ruling that denied the hospital the ability to seek tens of millions of dollars in compensation for breach of a revenue collection services contract.
Delgado v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 979 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2020). Representing an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, Brian obtained the reversal of an agency decision that declined to force an investigation into whether the agent had been retaliated against and denied promotions, in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, for reporting his suspicions that another agent had testified falsely during a federal criminal trial.
River Ridge Dev. Auth. v. Outfront Media, LLC, 146 N.E.3d 906 (Ind. 2020). Representing River Ridge Development Authority, Brian got a reversal of a six-figure attorney’s fees award.
Indiana Off. of Util. Consumer Couns. v. S. Indiana Gas & Elec. Co., 200 N.E.3d 915 (Ind. 2023). Representing the Indiana Energy Association as amicus curiae (friend of the court), Brian helped secure the reversal of a lower appellate court ruling that misinterpreted a statute governing customer credits for excess distributed generation of electricity.
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville, 234 N.E.3d 173 (Ind. 2024). Representing the Indiana Energy Association as amicus curiae, Brian helped secure the reversal of a lower appellate court ruling in a case holding that only the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission can decide whether a city ordinance implicating a public-utility function is unreasonable.

*****

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.