Archis A. Parasharami, a litigation partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC and Northern California offices, co-leads the DC office’s Litigation practice and the firm’s Class Actions practice, recently named by Law360 as a class action group of the year. He also is a member of the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice.
Archis defends businesses in class action litigation in federal and state courts around the country. He brings substantial experience to all aspects of complex litigation and class actions, with a particular focus on strategy issues, multidistrict litigation, and critical motions seeking the dismissal of class actions or opposing class certification. He also has helped businesses achieve settlements on highly favorable terms in significant class actions.
Archis frequently speaks on developments in the class action arena, and has been quoted on a number of occasions in the National Law Journal, Corporate Counsel, and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. He is a co-editor of Class Defense, the firm’s blog on key issues affecting class action law and policy.
Archis is one of the nation’s leading lawyers both in drafting arbitration agreements—particularly in the consumer and employment contexts—and in litigating the enforceability of those agreements. Most notably, Archis was one of the Mayer Brown lawyers who represented AT&T Mobility in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in which the US Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state-law rules that would refuse to enforce arbitration agreements solely because they waive class actions. Archis represented the company at all stages of the case, starting from the district court all the way to the Supreme Court, where Archis helped write the winning briefs. Along with his colleagues, Archis has represented the winning petitioners in three other Supreme Court cases involving the enforcement of arbitration agreements:
- Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, summarily reversing the West Virginia Supreme Court’s categorical refusal to enforce all pre-dispute arbitration agreements that apply to personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes as preempted by federal law.
- Kindred Nursing Centers LP v. Clark, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a Kentucky rule that requires a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before an attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to an arbitration agreement.
- Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act prevents states from requiring class-wide arbitration when an arbitration clause does not expressly provide for that form of arbitration.
Archis also represents companies in threatened and filed mass arbitrations, in which plaintiffs’ counsel seek to represent large numbers of consumers or workers in similar serial arbitrations. Archis has helped businesses reduce the risks of mass arbitrations through novel arbitration drafting strategies as well as procedural and merits-based defenses to those threatened claims.
In addition, Archis maintains a substantial appellate practice, drafting briefs in the US Supreme Court, federal and state appellate courts, and trial courts around the country. Among other things, Archis has prepared merits and amicus briefs in leading appellate cases involving class action and arbitration issues. Archis was one of the counsel who represented the petitioner in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which the Supreme Court recently held that a lawsuit claiming a bare statutory violation does not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement for standing to sue in federal court without allegations of concrete harm.
Clients have praised Archis as an “‘outstanding writer, fine oralist, and excellent strategist,’” according to the Legal 500.
Archis has received several awards recognizing his work on behalf of class action defendants. In 2015, The National Law Journal identified Archis as a “D.C. Rising Star,” one of “40 game-changing lawyers age 40 and under.” In 2013, Archis was selected by Law360 as a “Rising Star” in the field of class action litigation—one of five lawyers to receive that recognition. He also was named by The National Law Journal in 2011 as one of the "Minority 40 Under 40." And he has repeatedly been selected as a Washington DC “Super Lawyer.” In 2022, the National Law Journal declared Archis and his colleagues “Litigation Trailblazers” for obtaining a significant win dismissing a putative privacy class action on standing grounds.
Archis also advises and represents clients on legislative matters, helping advance substantive business and legal concerns within the public policy-making environment. He has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on issues relating to class actions and arbitration.
While at Mayer Brown, Archis has undertaken a number of pro bono matters, including litigation at the trial and appellate levels and public policy work on human rights issues. He is a former co-chair of the amicus committee of the South Asian Bar Association of North America and served for a number of years on the board of the South Asian Bar Association of the District of Columbia.
Archis is a member of the firm’s Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. He joined Mayer Brown in 2003 after clerking for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Harvard Law School, JD, cum laude
Co-Executive Editor for Student Authors, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Princeton University, AB, summa cum laude
Inscription au Barreau
- New York
- District of Columbia
- US Supreme Court
- US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- US District Court for the District of Columbia
- US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
- US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York
- US District Court for the District of Nebraska
- US District Court for the District of Maryland
- US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- US District Court for the Central District of California
- US District Court for the Northern District of California
- US District Court for the Southern District of California
- US District Court for the Eastern District of California
- US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee