Amelia Raether is an associate in the Chicago office of Latham & Watkins and a member of the Litigation & Trial Department.
Amelia focuses her practice on white collar defense, government and internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation across a variety of industries, with a focus on healthcare and financial services.
Amelia’s experience includes representing clients in investigations and litigation related to the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law, Medicare and Medicaid regulations, the Securities Exchange Act, the Securities Act, the Advisors Act, GAAP compliance, and other federal regulations.
Amelia has advocated for clients in government-facing investigations, examinations, and litigation with the Department of Justice, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”), and other domestic regulators.
Amelia has also represented clients in complex litigation, such as sensitive antidiscrimination and misconduct matters, high-stakes shareholder disputes, and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to federal agency action, including recovering over US$250 million in federal funding for a Medicare Advantage health insurer.
Amelia currently serves as a member of the firm’s Recruiting Committee and maintains an active pro bono practice on behalf of indigent clients.
Prior to joining the firm, Amelia served as a judicial law clerk for Judge Michael Y. Scudder, Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Amelia earned her JD at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, where she graduated summa cum laude and was awarded the John Paul Stevens Prize for academic excellence. While in law school, Amelia was an articles editor of the Northwestern University Law Review and a teaching assistant for several first-year courses.
Before law school, Amelia worked in management consulting in Washington, D.C.
Latham litigators won an Administrative Procedure Act case on behalf of SCAN Health Plan over a new plan rating methodology which would have cost them US$250 million in federal funding.