Mortgage Fraud
Defense
Drew Bradylyons supervised mortgage fraud prosecutions investigated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the Eastern District of Virginia. Scott Armstrong tried 16 federal jury trials in complex white-collar fraud cases. They now defend individuals facing mortgage fraud charges in federal courts nationwide.
Effective mortgage fraud defense requires lawyers who have built these cases from the prosecution side. FHFA-OIG, HUD-OIG, and FBI agents follow established methods to reconstruct the loan file, trace the proceeds, and identify the defendants whose conduct can be charged. A lawyer who has supervised that work knows where the methods break down.
Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. He supervised mortgage fraud prosecutions investigated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General (FHFA-OIG) involving millions of dollars in losses to federally insured lenders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Scott Armstrong served as Assistant Chief in the Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit of DOJ’s Fraud Section. He has tried 16 federal jury trials in complex white-collar cases and brings first-chair federal trial experience to every engagement.
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends individuals facing mortgage fraud charges in federal courts nationwide. The firm is particularly active in the districts where federal mortgage fraud prosecutions are concentrated: the District of New Jersey (the leading venue for multifamily mortgage fraud cases involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of Ohio (recent multi-defendant $50 million-plus bank fraud conspiracy involving real estate investors and title company employees), the District of Maryland, the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Texas, the Northern District of Texas, and the Southern District of Florida.
Drew Bradylyons — Former Chief, Financial Crimes & Public Corruption Unit, EDVA
The mortgage fraud cases Drew supervised at EDVA were investigated by FHFA-OIG, the FBI Washington Field Office, HUD-OIG, and IRS Criminal Investigation. Those cases targeted loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, closing and title company employees, appraisers, straw buyers, and the operators of large-scale fraud rings. Charges included wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, false statements to a financial institution, and money laundering. Loss amounts ran into the millions of dollars per scheme. In one recent EDVA matter supervised out of Drew’s former unit, the defendants diverted more than $1 million in fraud proceeds to personal expenses; both received federal prison sentences.
These prosecutions are document-intensive and victim-driven. They turn on loan files, closing documents, appraisals, bank records, communications, and the testimony of homeowners and lenders who were deceived. Drew now uses that prosecution experience to deconstruct the same cases from the defense side.
Scott Armstrong — Former Assistant Chief, Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit, DOJ Fraud Section
Scott’s 16 federal jury trials include multi-week trials involving Ponzi schemes laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through financial institutions, market manipulation cases against senior traders, commodities fraud, cryptocurrency manipulation, and healthcare fraud. The skills those trials required are the same skills mortgage fraud trials demand: cross-examining forensic accountants, managing voluminous document records, presenting complex financial transactions to a jury, and dismantling the government’s theory of intent.
Attacking Falsity and Materiality
The government must prove that the defendant made a false statement and that the statement was material to the lender’s decision to fund the loan. Both elements are vulnerable. On falsity, many alleged misrepresentations turn out to be accurate based on the information available at the time, statements of opinion or forward projection rather than fact, or entries prepared by a broker or third party without the defendant’s knowledge. On materiality, the defense challenges whether the lender actually relied on the alleged misstatement and whether the loan would have been approved on the true facts. Disclosures elsewhere in the loan file, lender verification activity, and underwriting overrides all weaken the government’s materiality theory.
Knowledge and Intent
Mortgage transactions involve many participants. Loan officers, brokers, processors, underwriters, appraisers, closing attorneys, and title agents each handle different documents. The government must prove that each individual defendant personally knew the statements were false and personally intended to defraud the lender. Loan officers who relied on documents provided by the borrower, brokers who relied on representations by the loan officer, and closing professionals who relied on the documents in the file have powerful defenses. The defense presents evidence of the defendant’s role, the information they actually saw, and what they were told by others.
Good Faith and Industry Practice
Mortgage lending is a regulated industry with established practices. Stated-income loans, wholesale broker channels, automated underwriting, and self-employed borrower documentation all generate transactions that look unusual to a juror but are entirely standard in the industry. The defense presents industry expert testimony to demonstrate that the conduct charged as fraud was consistent with accepted lending practice during the relevant period and that the defendant acted in good faith based on industry norms.
Lender Knowledge and Reliance
The bank fraud statute requires proof that the lender was the target of the scheme. The wire fraud statute requires proof of reliance on the misrepresentation. When the lender had access to the true facts, conducted its own verification, or proceeded with the loan despite known irregularities, the government’s reliance theory weakens. The defense pursues discovery of the lender’s underwriting policies, internal communications, and post-closing reviews to identify gaps in the government’s reliance proof.
Loss Calculation Challenges
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 drives sentencing in mortgage fraud cases. The government often calculates loss as the entire loan amount. The Guidelines, however, require credit for the value of collateral pledged, services rendered, and amounts repaid. Sophisticated loss calculation work can reduce the guideline range by years.
Parallel Civil and Regulatory Exposure
Mortgage fraud cases frequently generate parallel civil exposure. DOJ brings FIRREA civil claims seeking substantial statutory penalties. State attorneys general and state mortgage regulators pursue licensing actions. HUD pursues administrative debarment for FHA-related conduct. Defending the criminal case in isolation is not enough. The defense coordinates strategy across every track to prevent statements made in one proceeding from being used against the client in another.
Loan Origination Fraud
Loan origination fraud involves false statements or material omissions in a residential or commercial mortgage application. Common allegations include misstated income, falsified employment verifications, fabricated bank statements, inflated asset values, misrepresented occupancy intent, and undisclosed liabilities. The government charges loan origination fraud under the wire fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343), the bank fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and the false statements to a financial institution statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1014. When the loan is purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, FHFA-OIG opens an investigation. When the loan is FHA-insured, HUD-OIG investigates.
Straw Buyer and Identity-Based Schemes
Straw buyer schemes use a nominal purchaser to obtain a mortgage loan on behalf of the true beneficiary, often to qualify for financing the true beneficiary could not obtain or to conceal the true ownership of the property. Identity-based mortgage fraud uses the personal information of unwitting victims to obtain loans in their names. The defendants strip the equity, default on the loan, or sell the property without the victim’s knowledge. Federal prosecutors charge these schemes as conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud affecting financial institutions, with sentences ranging into multiple years of federal imprisonment.
Appraisal and Valuation Fraud
Appraisal fraud involves the use of inflated or fabricated property valuations to support loan amounts that exceed the property’s true market value. Federal prosecutors charge appraisers, brokers, and lenders who participate in appraisal manipulation under the wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statement statutes. FHFA-OIG and HUD-OIG have prioritized appraisal fraud investigations involving loans sold to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA. Appraisal fraud cases often arise alongside straw buyer schemes, equity stripping schemes, and loan flipping operations.
Equity Stripping and Foreclosure Rescue Fraud
Equity stripping schemes target homeowners with equity in their property, often elders or financially distressed individuals. The operators induce the homeowner to transfer title, refinance into a predatory loan, or sign documents they do not understand. The operators then extract the equity and leave the homeowner with the loan and, frequently, no home. Foreclosure rescue fraud targets homeowners facing default with promises of mortgage modification or rescue in exchange for upfront fees, title transfers, or signed documents. DOJ’s White Collar Enforcement Plan identifies elder fraud as a priority area. Equity stripping and foreclosure rescue schemes targeting elderly homeowners receive heightened enforcement attention.
Commercial Mortgage and Multifamily Lending Fraud
Commercial mortgage fraud involves false statements or omissions in commercial real estate loan applications, including misrepresented rent rolls, fabricated tenant leases, inflated property valuations, undisclosed side agreements, and false statements about the borrower’s financial condition. Multifamily lending fraud involving loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is a focused enforcement area for FHFA-OIG. These cases often involve sophisticated borrowers, mortgage brokers, and commercial real estate professionals. Sentences and loss amounts in commercial mortgage fraud cases routinely exceed those in residential cases.
Closing, Title, and Wire Fraud at Settlement
Closing and title fraud involves false HUD-1 or Closing Disclosure forms, undisclosed payments outside of closing, fabricated source-of-funds documentation, diversion of loan proceeds, and wire fraud schemes targeting settlement funds. Closing attorneys, title agents, escrow officers, and settlement specialists who participate in these schemes face prosecution under the wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering statutes. The District of New Jersey’s recent multifamily mortgage fraud cases have prominently featured closing-stage misconduct, including sham dual closings performed at title and settlement companies and undisclosed transfers of loan proceeds.
Mortgage fraud cases are built on the loan file, the closing file, and the money trail. The government reconstructs the loan origination process step by step, identifies each false statement, ties it to a specific defendant, and proves that the lender relied on it. An effective defense begins with understanding that reconstruction in detail.
Loan Files and Closing Documents
The government obtains the complete loan file from the originating lender and the closing file from the title or settlement company. Loan applications, income verifications, employment verifications, bank statements, tax returns, appraisals, HUD-1 or Closing Disclosure forms, and recorded deeds become exhibits at trial. Forensic underwriters retained by FHFA-OIG, HUD-OIG, or the FBI compare the application documents to the underlying facts. Discrepancies are mapped against the defendant who created or submitted each document.
Financial Tracing
The government traces loan proceeds from disbursement at closing through the recipient’s personal and business accounts. FBI and FHFA-OIG forensic accountants reconstruct the flow of funds to prove that the proceeds were diverted, that equity was stripped, or that fraud proceeds were used for personal expenses. In recent prosecutions, the government has documented seven-figure transfers of fraud proceeds used to pay luxury travel, credit card bills, and daily living expenses.
Victim and Lender Testimony
The government calls homeowners whose identities were used without authorization, homeowners whose properties were sold without their knowledge, lender underwriters who relied on false documents, and Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac representatives who describe the loss to the federally chartered enterprise. Victim testimony is powerful at trial and at sentencing.
Ephemeral Messaging and Communications Evidence
Loan files establish what happened. Communications establish what the participants knew and intended. Ephemeral messaging platforms like Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Wickr have become a critical battleground for both sides of a mortgage fraud case.
The government uses these messages to prove wrongful intent. A text discussing how to characterize a borrower’s income to get the loan approved, a Signal thread between a loan officer and a broker about how to handle an underwriter question, a WhatsApp message coordinating a sham closing, a Telegram chat about where to route the proceeds: these are the exhibits that turn a paperwork case into a fraud trial. Prosecutors also argue that the choice to use disappearing messages reflects consciousness of guilt and, in aggravated cases, charge obstruction of justice.
The defense uses the same messages to prove good faith. Contemporaneous communications often show the defendant asking questions, flagging concerns, relying on information from others, and acting consistent with industry practice. A message asking the borrower to confirm an employment detail before submitting an application looks very different from a message coaching the borrower on what to say. The defense audits every platform the client used, preserves what exists, evaluates privilege, and identifies the messages that undercut the government’s intent theory. The defense also pursues the messages the government did not collect: chats between agents and cooperators, internal lender communications, and third-party emails that complete the picture.
Mortgage fraud is a sustained federal enforcement priority. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General investigates fraud affecting FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, frequently with the FBI, HUD-OIG, IRS-CI, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. DOJ’s May 2025 White Collar Enforcement Plan identified federal program fraud and fraud that victimizes individuals and markets as core focus areas, and mortgage fraud against the federally chartered enterprises sits within both.
The government is charging individuals at every level of the mortgage transaction: loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, closing attorneys, title company employees, appraisers, straw buyers, and borrowers. The penalties are severe. Wire fraud and mail fraud each carry up to 20 years per count, or 30 years when the fraud affects a financial institution. Bank fraud carries up to 30 years. Money laundering charges compound the exposure. Defendants also face mandatory restitution, criminal forfeiture, and parallel civil claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
A federal mortgage fraud investigation rarely stays in one lane. DOJ brings criminal charges. The civil division pursues FIRREA claims. State attorneys general and state mortgage regulators bring licensing and consumer protection actions. HUD pursues administrative debarment for FHA-related conduct. FHFA-OIG coordinates across these tracks. Statements made in one proceeding can be used in another.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) allows the government to recover civil penalties for violations affecting federally insured financial institutions. The penalties are substantial and can run independently of any criminal disposition. The statute of limitations is ten years, longer than the limitations period for most criminal mortgage fraud charges. A defendant who resolves the criminal case may still face years of FIRREA exposure.
At EDVA, Drew coordinated parallel civil and criminal enforcement matters across the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Scott prosecuted complex financial fraud cases at DOJ’s Fraud Section alongside parallel SEC, CFTC, and receiver proceedings. The firm uses that experience to protect clients across every front of a mortgage fraud investigation and to prevent statements, productions, and proffers in one proceeding from compromising the defense in another.
What Is Mortgage Fraud Under Federal Law?
Mortgage fraud is the use of material misrepresentations, omissions, or false documents in connection with the application for, origination of, or closing of a residential or commercial mortgage loan. The most common federal charges are wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and false statements to a federally insured financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014). Money laundering charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957 often accompany the underlying fraud counts.
The federal interest is triggered when the loan involves a federally insured lender, an FHA-insured loan, or a loan sold to or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks. Once that federal interest exists, FHFA-OIG, HUD-OIG, the FBI, or IRS-CI typically investigates, often jointly.
What Is Occupancy Fraud? Is It Really a Federal Crime?
Yes. Occupancy fraud is a federal crime. It occurs when a borrower falsely declares on a loan application that a property will be the borrower’s primary residence in order to obtain a lower interest rate, smaller down payment, or easier underwriting than would apply to a second home or investment property. Federal prosecutors charge occupancy fraud as wire fraud, bank fraud, or false statements to a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
Occupancy fraud has become a national headline issue. Recent FHFA criminal referrals involving public figures, including Senator Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, have placed primary-residence representations on mortgage applications squarely in the federal enforcement spotlight. According to Cotality’s 2025 Annual Fraud Report, occupancy misrepresentation tripled between 2020 and 2024 before beginning to decline in 2025.
The defense is fact-intensive. Whether a property was the borrower’s primary residence often turns on time spent at the property, employment and family ties, voter registration, driver’s license, tax filings, and where mail was received. Borrowers who genuinely treated a property as their primary residence, who relied on broker or lender advice in completing the application, or whose circumstances changed after closing have viable defenses.
What Is Multifamily Mortgage Fraud and Why Is It Such a Federal Priority?
Multifamily mortgage fraud involves false statements or omissions in commercial loan applications for apartment buildings and other multi-unit residential properties financed by lenders that sell loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Common allegations include inflated purchase prices, fabricated rent rolls, fake tenant leases, undisclosed side agreements, sham dual closings, and identity misuse to qualify borrowers the agencies would not approve.
Multifamily fraud is the single hottest area of federal mortgage enforcement. The District of New Jersey has prosecuted a series of high-profile multifamily fraud cases involving losses exceeding $100 million per scheme, including the Puretz, Drillman, Silber, and Schulman prosecutions. Cotality’s Q4 2025 data show that one in every 27 multifamily mortgage applications carries fraud risk indicators, well above the industry average. FHFA-OIG, the FBI, IRS-CI, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service typically investigate jointly. The Southern District of Ohio’s January 2026 $50 million-plus bank fraud indictment against the owners of a real estate investment group is representative of the current docket.
What Is FHFA-OIG and Why Is It Investigating My Case?
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for investigating fraud affecting FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. When a mortgage loan is sold to or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, fraud in that loan harms the federally chartered enterprise. FHFA-OIG opens an investigation, partners with the FBI, HUD-OIG, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service as needed, and refers cases to U.S. Attorney’s Offices for criminal prosecution.
FHFA-OIG investigates loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers, closing and title professionals, straw buyers, and borrowers. Drew Bradylyons supervised mortgage fraud prosecutions investigated by FHFA-OIG as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit. The firm uses that direct experience to defend against FHFA-OIG investigations from the earliest contact through indictment and trial.
What Should I Do If I Received a Target Letter or Grand Jury Subpoena?
Retain experienced federal defense counsel immediately. A federal target letter from a U.S. Attorney’s Office means prosecutors believe there is substantial evidence linking the recipient to a federal crime and that an indictment may be imminent. A federal grand jury subpoena means a grand jury is gathering evidence, either for testimony or for document production. Both require an immediate strategic response.
Do not speak with FBI, FHFA-OIG, HUD-OIG, or IRS-CI agents without counsel. Do not respond to the subpoena, contact other participants in the transaction, or modify loan files, closing documents, emails, text messages, or messages on Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, or Wickr. Other early warning signs of investigation include a search warrant at a residence or office, notification from a former employer that records have been subpoenaed, contact with a cooperating witness, or learning that a loan file is under federal review.
The most consequential decisions in a mortgage fraud investigation happen before charges are filed. Early counsel can shape the government’s charging decision, negotiate the scope of subpoena compliance, assert applicable privileges, and in many cases prevent an indictment altogether.
What Federal Penalties Apply to Mortgage Fraud?
The penalties are severe and frequently stack across counts.
Wire fraud and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343): up to 20 years per count, or 30 years when the fraud affects a financial institution. Each transmission can be a separate count.
Bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344): up to 30 years per count and fines up to $1 million.
False statements to a financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014): up to 30 years per count.
Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1349): carries the same penalty as the underlying offense.
Money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956): up to 20 years and fines up to twice the value of the laundered funds.
Defendants also face mandatory restitution to lenders and homeowner victims, criminal forfeiture, and Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for loss amount, number of victims, sophisticated means, abuse of position of trust, and leadership role.
What Is DSCR Loan Fraud and Investment Property Fraud?
Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) loans are non-qualified mortgages underwritten primarily on the projected rental income of an investment property rather than the borrower’s personal income. The popularity of DSCR loans has surged with the growth of small-investor and multi-unit lending. Federal enforcement attention has followed. Cotality reports that investment property mortgage fraud risk jumped 34% year over year and that one in 43 investment property applications now shows indications of fraud.
The government charges DSCR and investment property fraud as wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statements to a financial institution. Common allegations include inflated projected rents, fabricated lease agreements with non-existent or related-party tenants, misrepresentation of intended use (the occupancy fraud overlap), and undisclosed liabilities or other real estate debt. Brokers, originators, and borrowers in this space face significantly heightened enforcement risk in 2025 and 2026.
What Is Undisclosed Real Estate Debt Fraud?
Undisclosed real estate debt fraud occurs when a borrower fails to disclose existing mortgages, HELOCs, or other real estate liabilities on a loan application, often to qualify for a loan the borrower could not otherwise obtain. The borrower may also conceal that a second loan was obtained on the same property in close timing with the new application, a practice known as shotgunning. Cotality data show undisclosed real estate debt risk grew approximately 12% in 2024 and remains a rising concern.
Federal prosecutors charge undisclosed real estate debt cases under the wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statement statutes. These cases often surface during post-closing quality control reviews by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which trigger FHFA-OIG investigation. Defense strategy focuses on what the borrower actually knew about pending or contingent liabilities, who prepared the application, and whether the alleged omission was material to the lender’s decision.
What Defenses Are Available in a Mortgage Fraud Case?
The available defenses depend on the specific charges and facts. Common defenses include the following.
Lack of knowledge. The defendant did not know the statements in the loan application or closing documents were false and relied on documents prepared by others. This defense is particularly strong for loan officers, processors, closing professionals, and borrowers who relied on a broker.
Lack of intent to defraud. Errors, omissions, and judgment calls in loan processing are not federal crimes. The government must prove specific intent to deceive the lender.
Materiality. The alleged misstatement was not material to the lender’s underwriting decision. Disclosures elsewhere in the loan file, lender verification activity, and underwriting overrides can defeat the government’s materiality theory.
Lender knowledge. The lender had access to the true facts, conducted its own verification, or proceeded with the loan despite known irregularities, undercutting the government’s reliance theory.
Industry practice and good faith. The defendant’s conduct was consistent with accepted lending practices, including stated-income, wholesale broker, and self-employed borrower documentation norms.
Statute of limitations. Wire fraud and bank fraud affecting a financial institution carry a ten-year statute of limitations. Conduct outside that window is time-barred.
What Sentencing Exposure Do I Face?
Sentencing in federal mortgage fraud cases is driven by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. Loss amount is the primary driver of the guideline range. Additional enhancements apply for number of victims, sophisticated means, abuse of a position of trust (loan officers, brokers, attorneys, and appraisers commonly receive this enhancement), use of mass marketing, role in the offense, and obstruction.
Recent federal sentences for individual mortgage fraud defendants in single-scheme cases range from two to five years. Organizers of multimillion-dollar multifamily conspiracies have received substantially higher sentences. Restitution to defrauded lenders and homeowner victims is mandatory. Criminal forfeiture of fraud proceeds is standard. Defense work on loss calculation, credit for collateral value, and downward variance arguments can reduce the effective guideline range by years.
What Is FIRREA and How Does It Apply to Mortgage Fraud?
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, authorizes DOJ to bring civil claims for substantial penalties against individuals and entities that violate certain federal statutes affecting federally insured financial institutions. The list of predicate offenses includes wire fraud and bank fraud affecting a financial institution.
FIRREA matters in mortgage fraud cases for several reasons. The statute of limitations is ten years, longer than the limitations period for most criminal charges. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, lower than the criminal standard. FIRREA actions frequently follow criminal mortgage fraud prosecutions and can target individuals whom DOJ chose not to charge criminally. The civil case can also proceed on a parallel track during a criminal investigation. Effective defense requires planning for FIRREA exposure from day one and coordinating statements, productions, and proffers across every track.
In What Federal Districts Does Armstrong & Bradylyons Handle Mortgage Fraud Cases?
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends individuals in federal courts nationwide. The firm’s attorneys have litigated and tried cases in federal districts across the country, including the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville and Roanoke), the District of Maryland (Greenbelt), the District of New Jersey (Newark), the Eastern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus), the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit), the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), the Eastern District of North Carolina (Raleigh), the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville), the Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxville), the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans), the Southern District of Florida (Miami and Fort Lauderdale), the Middle District of Florida (Orlando), the Northern District of Texas (Dallas), the Southern District of Texas (Houston), the District of Colorado (Denver), the Central District of California (Los Angeles), and the Northern District of California (San Francisco). For more on the firm’s nationwide federal trial practice, see White-Collar Defense & Federal Trial Practice.
The firm obtains pro hac vice admission in any federal district where a client faces charges or investigation.