Evan M. Tager

"A dedicated 'go-to' thinking partner who brings a unique blend of style, personality and high-octane brain power to deliver truly superior analysis, advocacy and actionable solutions for complex and high-stakes problems. When it’s ‘go-time’ he gets results that count."

Evan Tager is a member of the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate and Class Action practices, recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a National Litigation Star and identified by Chambers USA and Legal 500 as one of America’s leading appellate lawyers for multiple years running. Evan has been integrally involved in a range of issues of paramount importance to the business community, including punitive damages, class-certification standards, admissibility of expert testimony, and enforceability of arbitration agreements. He also has handled dozens of cases involving claims against railroads arising out of workplace injuries, grade crossing accidents, derailments, and injuries to trespassers. On the strength of his railroad appellate work, Evan was selected as one of three Transportation MVPs by Law360 in November 2019.

In December 2014, Evan was named to The National Law Journal’s inaugural list of “Litigation Trailblazers & Pioneers,” which recognizes the achievements of 50 people who have “helped make a difference in the fight for justice” and “shown a deep passion and perseverance in pursuit of their mission, having achieved remarkable successes along the way.” The National Law Journal recognized Evan for his transformative work in two areas of law that are of great concern to the business community: punitive damages and the enforceability of arbitration provisions.

In February 2013, International Law Office awarded Evan its Client Choice Award for the Litigation category in Washington DC. This award, which is based entirely on client nominations and references, is given to one lawyer per city. According to ILO's press release, "[c]lients are asked to rate individual lawyers and law firms on the following client service criteria: quality of legal advice, value for money, commercial awareness, effective communication, billing transparency, tailored fee structures, response time, sharing of expertise and use of technology." One client interviewed by ILO commented that "Evan Tager’s trial and appellate work for my company has facilitated a fundamental positive change in some of the most important legal doctrines impacting businesses." Another observed that "Evan’s reputation is that of a master strategist and communicator, with top-flight analytical skills and a unique ability to simplify the complex." And a third said that "Evan brings a value set and open-mindedness that allow him to become a trusted business partner, and he is eager to align his interests with the client’s."

In 2012, The National Law Journal named Evan to its "Champions and Visionaries" list, citing his work helping Cingular Wireless (now AT&T Mobility) create an incentives-based customer arbitration process aimed at reducing the number of class actions the company had to fight and his successful defense of that process at the US Supreme Court. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts states from refusing to enforce arbitration provisions on the ground that they disallow class actions. Recognizing the nearly ten-year duration of Evan’s efforts in this area, The National Law Journal said that "Evan Tager has established himself as one of the great marathon runners in the federal appellate system."

The National Law Journal quoted one of Evan's clients as saying that his company retained Evan because "[h]is reputation was that of a master strategist and communicator, with top-tier analytical skills and a unique ability to simplify the complex and make sense of confusion. I learned he is that and more. Evan brings a value set and open-mindedness that allow him to become a trusted business partner and is eager to align his interests with the client’s." And Chambers USA reports that clients appreciate Evan’s "very rich experience with appellate law," praising him as being "very thoughtful, a great writer and oral advocate, and one of the clearest thinkers in terms of appellate law and strategy."

In its issue on leading appellate lawyers, Legal Times said that "[w]hen a major company needs to find a lawyer in a key case involving class certification, punitive damages, or arbitration, there's a good chance it will hire Evan Tager." "In the past several years," the publication stated, Evan "has become the go-to attorney in a growing number of cases that matter to big businesses across the United States."

Evan has represented either a party or an amicus in every Supreme Court case involving punitive damages in the last two decades. He has been involved in scores of other punitive damages cases in the lower courts, helping to save clients over $3.5 billion in the aggregate. In addition, Evan has represented parties or amici in numerous other cases involving issues of importance to the business community in the United States Supreme Court and in lower courts throughout the country. One of Evan’s clients told Chambers USA that, as a briefwriter, Evan "deploys a grasp of language and argument that is a marvel to behold." Also according to Chambers USA, Evan is "'smart and adept,' he is praised by clients for his 'ability to focus on the details at the same time as keeping his eye on the bigger picture.'"

Over the course of his career, Evan has delivered more than 60 appellate arguments. He has argued cases in the US Supreme Court, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, the DC Court of Appeals, the California Court of Appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, the Kentucky Supreme Court, the New York Appellate Division, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the Washington Supreme Court, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and numerous state and federal trial courts.

Evan is a thought leader in several areas that are of interest to the business community.  He has published extensively on the subjects of punitive damages, class actions, and expert testimony, among other things, and has participated frequently on panels devoted to punitive damages and class actions. In 2014 and 2017, he was a guest lecturer on punitive damages at Harvard Law School as part of Professor John Goldberg’s course “Torts in the Supreme Court.” Also in 2014, Evan founded Mayer Brown’s blog on punitive damages, for which he serves as Editor-in-Chief. Known as Guideposts, the blog can be found at www.punitivedamagesblog.com.

Evan received his AB, magna cum laude from Princeton University in 1982 and his JD in 1985 from Stanford Law School, where he was Articles Editor of the Stanford Law Review and winner of the Board of Editors Award for Outstanding Editorial Contribution to the Stanford Law Review. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Mary M. Schroeder in the Ninth Circuit.

Articles and Treatise Chapters

Punitive Damages

• Punitive Damages, in “Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts – Chapter 48" (Thompson Reuters, 4th ed. 2016)
• "There's No Right to Punitives," The National Law Journal, April, 14 2008
• "Exxon Shipping Provides Court Welcome Opportunity on Excessive Punitive Damages," Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Backgrounder, February 22, 2008
• "Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Another Brick in The Punitive Damages Wall," Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Backgrounder, March 9, 2007
• "Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Applicability to Bad-Faith Litigation," Life, Health and Disability News, 2007
• "The Impact of State Farm v. Campbell: A Two-Year Retrospective," Coverage, May/June 2005
• "Conversations with the Honorable Dick Thornburgh," Washington Legal Foundation, Bulletin on Punitive Damages, September 2003
• "The Implications of State Farm v. Campbell for the Future of Punitive Damages in Bad Faith Litigation," Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, April 22, 2003
• "Reading Between the Lines of Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 121 S. Ct. 1678 (2001)," Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, August 8, 2001, at 22
• "Punitive Damages Claims in Environmental Tort Cases: Lessons from Johansen v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.," 29 Environmental Law Reports 10196, March 2000
• "Punitive Damages After BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore," Mealey's Litigation Report: Bad Faith, September 10, 1997

Class Actions

• "The Constitutional Limitations on Class Actions," Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions, January 2001, at 34

Arbitration

• "Drafting Fair, Efficient and Enforceable Arbitration Agreements," Counsel to Counsel, May 1, 2008

Expert Witnesses

• "Bad Faith Experts after Kumho," Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, October 5, 1999, at 22

Appellate Practice

• Effective Brief Writing, in “Federal Appellate Practice – Chapter 7" (BNA 2d ed. 2013)
• "Tips On Preserving Arguments For Appeal," Mealey's Insurance Law Weekly, December 1, 1997 

Speaking Engagements

Punitive Damages

• Punitive Damages & Due Process, Torts in the Supreme Court, Harvard Law School, March 11, March 25, April 1, 2014
• Punitive Damages Strategy Forum Webinar: The Ratio Guidepost: Recurring Issues, Mayer Brown Webinar, March 24, 2010
• Punitive Damages: A Case Law & Legislative Update, Professional Education Broadcast Network Teleseminar, August 26, 2008
• Exxon v Baker - What Does This Mean for Business?, Mayer Brown Webinar, July 1, 2008
• Panel 2: Spotlight on Law and Regulation: Massachusetts v. EPA, Watters v. Wachovia Bank, and Philip Morris v. Williams, Cato Institute, September 27, 2007
• Ten Years after BMW v. Gore: Punitive Damages at Trial and on Appeal, Washington Legal Foundation, April 25, 2006
• Reining in Excessive Punitive Damages: The Post-State Farm Litigation Environment, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, DC, April 28, 2004
• The Implications of State Farm v. Campbell for the Future of Bad-Faith Litigation, Defense Research Institute, Washington, DC, April 15, 2004
• The State of Punitive Damages After the Campbell Decision, Mealey's Bad Faith Conference, Philadelphia, PA, September 22, 2003
• Punitive Damages After BMW, American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, San Francisco, CA, August 5, 1997
• Punitive Damages After Oberg, American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, April 6, 1995

Class Actions

• Class Actions in the Supreme Court in the 2012 Term, Mayer Brown Webinar, July 2, 2013
• The Class Action Fairness Act: Tort Reform or Litigator's Nightmare, Stafford Publications, March 9, 2005
• Class Action Fairness Act: Analysis and Commentary, Mayer Brown Webinar, February 24, 2005
• State Consumer Fraud Act Class Actions, American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, Washington, DC, April 5, 2000

Arbitration

• Arbitration and Class Actions Two Years After Concepcion, Mayer Brown Webinar, May 1, 2013
• Arbitration after AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: Judicial, Regulatory and Strategic Legal Responses to High Court’s 2011 Ruling, Washington Legal Foundation Web Seminar, May 8, 2012
• Whither Conception, Association of General Counsel, October 7, 2011
• AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: A Key New Decision on Class Arbitration, Law Seminars International, May 24, 2011
• Class Actions and Arbitration Agreements: The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Mayer Brown Webinar, May 4, 2011

Appellate Practice

• Effective Brief Writing, Mayer Brown Teleconference, February 10, 2009

Miscellaneous

• Tort Law in the Courts, American Tort Reform Association, March 11, 2014
• Capitol Perspectives: The Intersection of Business, Law & Government, “Responding to Regulatory Overreach,” Mayer Brown Event, October 2, 2012
• Supreme Court and Business: Assessing this Term’s Decisions and Looking Forward to Next Term’s Docket, Mayer Brown Webinar, June 29, 2011
• Alternative Fee Arrangements: Formulating Mutually Advantageous Alternative Fee Arrangements, ALM Corporate Counsel Conference, June 7, 2011
• Recurring Issues in Life and Disability Insurance Litigation, American Council of Life Insurers, New Orleans, LA, March 2, 2004
• Mold Litigation: Three Key Battlefields, National Multi Housing Counsel, Houston TX, October 1, 2003