Counsel
Nicholas Schlossman represents clients in high-stakes litigation matters, including disputes with the government, consumer class actions, and other complex proceedings.
Nicholas combines extensive complex commercial litigation experience with a sophisticated understanding of multiple regulated industries. He represents clients before trial courts, arbitrators, appellate courts, and administrative agencies, typically in cases involving a complex regulatory overlay. He works with clients in a number of highly regulated industries, including:
He fosters trusted relationships with clients to understand their business and legal objectives and devise a litigation strategy that allows them to achieve those goals.
In addition, he regularly drafts briefs and counsels clients on novel issues of administrative law and challenges to the legality of government actions. His matters arise under a wide range of federal statutory and regulatory regimes, including the Administrative Procedure Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Orphan Drug Act; Hatch-Waxman Act; Medicare Act; 340B Drug Pricing Program; Controlled Substances Act; Plant Protection Act; Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); Communications Act; Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and various consumer protection statutes. In addition to litigating these issues, he provides pre-dispute counseling to clients in regulatory matters that may result in litigation.
Nicholas serves as a member of the firm’s Ethics Committee. He also maintains an active pro bono practice, including multiple engagements concerning nationwide civil asset forfeiture practices.
Nicholas' experience includes playing a significant role in:
A Latham team secured a decisive victory against the federal government in a challenge to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' calculation of Clover's 2026 Medicare Advantage "Star Rating.”
Latham lawyers were honored for securing big victories for Avadel Pharmaceuticals and The Trade Desk.
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.