Areas of Practice

Brad's practice centers on complex commercial litigation, both affirmative and defensive, and on the analytical and operational disciplines that make litigation decisions better. He serves as Assistant General Counsel for Affirmative Recoveries and Senior Commercial Litigation Counsel at HP Inc., where he manages a portfolio of the company's most significant plaintiff-side and defensive matters.

Commercial Litigation & Affirmative Recoveries

Brad prosecutes affirmative claims on behalf of large enterprise clients, working with specialized outside counsel across the country. The practice combines deep knowledge of the client's business with substantial experience in pre-litigation negotiation, and a premium is placed on resolving disputes without litigation and preserving strategic business relationships wherever possible. When matters do not resolve, Brad directly manages prosecution through trial and appeal. Representative categories include commercial and supplier disputes, global antitrust and cartel enforcement, Lanham Act actions against counterfeit and gray-market distributors, and international trade litigation. One such matter was recognized by the Association of Corporate Counsel – Houston Chapter and The Texas Lawbook as Houston's 2021 Business Litigation of the Year.

Litigation Defense

On the defensive side, Brad manages complex commercial litigation in categories that carry meaningful enterprise-level risk: class actions, multi-jurisdictional government and regulatory investigations (including those outside the United States), employment litigation, False Claims Act qui tam matters, and high-stakes contract and business tort disputes. The approach is disciplined and resolution-oriented: evaluate exposure rigorously, understand the adversary's incentives, and pursue outcomes that serve the business rather than the litigation itself.

Trials & Arbitration

Brad has tried more than 25 cases and arbitrations to verdict or award as first-chair or co-counsel in private practice, with wins on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants and complete victories in multiple arbitration awards. In his current role, he has supervised ten enterprise-scale trials and arbitrations, directing outside counsel and holding strategic and settlement authority on behalf of the company. Notable examples include a jury trial resulting in a $175-million-plus plaintiff's verdict, later trebled by statute and affirmed on appeal, and a defense verdict in a case where the plaintiffs sought more than $230 million in damages. The trial experience is a function of how the broader practice is built: matters are evaluated and positioned from the outset on the assumption that some will go the distance, and the work done in pre-litigation negotiation is stronger for it.

Quantitative Case Valuation

Brad applies formal decision analysis to litigation, using decision-tree modeling and expected-value calculation grounded in prospect theory to produce disciplined settlement ranges and counteract the cognitive biases that systematically distort litigation decisions. The framework draws on the scholarship of Chris Guthrie and on Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's foundational work on judgment under uncertainty. The approach is particularly useful where a case's apparent value diverges sharply from its expected value, a common pattern when loss aversion, framing effects, and probability weighting pull parties toward decisions they would not make under careful analysis.

Legal Operations & AI

Brad develops AI-assisted tools and workflows for in-house litigation practice, including automated intake and routing systems, matter-management assistants, and agentic workflows for case analysis and valuation. He has also been instrumental in the selection, deployment, and ongoing refinement of successive matter-management platforms for his department, and works actively on integrating modern AI tools into daily litigation practice. The underlying conviction is that competent use of modern tools is now part of competent practice: the question is not whether AI belongs in the litigation function, but how to integrate it rigorously, with appropriate governance and human judgment preserved where it matters.