Ronald Blum represents clients in complex criminal and civil matters.  He has special expertise in parallel proceedings in which clients face simultaneous criminal penalties and civil liability.  He has extensive experience handling the issues that arise at the intersection of criminal and civil law, including questions concerning privileges and waiver of privileges, discovery and voluntary disclosure.  Mr. Blum regularly conducts internal corporate investigations and advises in matters involving special litigation committees.  In addition, Mr. Blum teaches at Fordham Law School and has published numerous articles on criminal and civil procedure.  

Before entering private practice, Mr. Blum was Law Clerk to United States District Judge Lloyd F. MacMahon, in the Southern District of New York, and Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where he handled investigations, trials and appeals of numerous criminal matters.

Mr. Blum’s practice focuses on two highly regulated industries – healthcare and financial services.  In the healthcare field, Mr. Blum regularly counsels clients in investigations by federal and local prosecutors and regulators, including the New York State Attorney General.  He also represents clients in complex healthcare civil litigation and state and federal qui tam matters.  Recent matters include:

• multiple investigations concerning institutional cost reports and the relation among clinics and a hospital;

• an investigation into Medicaid billing by a mental health facility;

• alleged whistleblower complaints concerning distribution of pharmaceutical products;

• litigation relating to clinical trials and data safety monitoring boards;

• investigations of diverted pharmaceutical products;

• parallel civil and criminal proceedings involving alleged off-label promotion of pharmaceutical products;

• civil litigations arising out of a hospital system’s appointment by the Department of Health as temporary operator of adult homes, MediSys Health Network, Inc. v. Local 348, 337 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003);

• civil litigation on behalf of a hospital system relating to the peer review process, Bernholc v. Kitain, et al., 294 A.D.2d 398 (2d Dep’t 2002);

• civil litigation on behalf of a BlueCross/BlueShield company concerning a capitated contract;

• dismissal, based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preemption, of claims relating to medical device, Horowitz v. Stryker Corp., 613 F. Supp. 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2009);

• along with the Medicare Rights Center, a federal court challenge to the government’s failure to apply the so-called “treating physician rule” in connection with Medicare reimbursement.

In the financial services sector, Mr. Blum represents clients before such regulatory bodies as the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA. Recent representations include:

• allegations of insider trading by the SEC and federal and state prosecutors;

• alleged violations of regulations promulgated by the Export-Import Bank;

• alleged violations of FINRA guidelines;

• alleged violations of stock exchange reporting requirements.

Some other significant reported decisions include:

• on behalf of Schick Manufacturing, Inc., obtained preliminary injunction in false advertising case, Schick Mfg., Inc., v. Gillette Co., 372 F.Supp.2d 273 (D. Conn. 2005).

• represented foreign attorney in litigation raising questions of attorney-client privilege, crime-fraud exception and interaction of foreign and local privilege and disciplinary rules, Madanes v. Madanes, 199 F.R.D. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

• represented Hewlett Packard Co. in civil litigation to recover proceeds of criminal enterprise, Gala Enterprises, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 989 F.Supp. 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); 940 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

• successfully argued leading case on the scope of federal appellate review in connection with preliminary injunctive relief, Lermer Germany GmbH v. Lermer Corp., 94 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

• defeated motion for class certification in connection with mass tort, Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., 160 F.R.D. 667 (N.D. Ohio 1995).

• upon appointment by the New York Court of Appeals and on remand from the United States Supreme Court, convinced New York’s highest court to hold that the New York State Constitution affords greater protection than the United States Constitution in connection with search and seizure, People v. Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434 (1991).