Photo of Lee Popkin

Lee Popkin

Subscribe to Lee Popkin's Posts

Lee Popkin is a trial lawyer in Proskauer’s Litigation Department and co-head of the firm’s Mass Torts & Product Liability Group. Lee represents clients in a wide range of industries through every stage of litigation and has served as lead and/or trial counsel in state and federal courts throughout the country.

Lee was named Young Lawyer of the Year (Litigation) by The American Lawyer for 2022 and shortlisted for Product Liability Lawyer of the Year in Euromoney’s Women in Business Law awards in 2023 and 2024. Lee is ranked by Chambers for Commercial Litigation and recognized by The Legal 500 for her work in Product Liability and Mass Torts. Benchmark Litigation named Lee among its “Future Stars” and included her in its 40 and Under list.

Lee’s notable representations and victories include:

Stephens v. Monsanto. Trial counsel to Monsanto in a product liability action relating to the company’s weedkiller, Roundup, and its alleged link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After a five-month trial, the California jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims.
Tiffany & Co. v. Costco. Counsel to Tiffany & Co. in successful pursuit of Lanham Act trademark infringement and counterfeit action related to Costco’s use of the TIFFANY mark to sell diamond engagement rings.
Universal Standard Inc. v. Target. Counsel to Target in successful pursuit of Lanham Act trademark infringement action related to its Universal Thread clothing line.
Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to Johnson & Johnson in a widely publicized product liability case relating to the company’s talc-based products and their alleged link to ovarian cancer. After trial, the court entered judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the J&J defendants, and, in the alternative, granted J&J’s motion for a new trial.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. Successfully represented Bed, Bath & Beyond in action to enforce agreement by 1‑800-Flowers to purchase PersonalizationMall.com.
Global Holdings v. Church & Dwight, Co., Inc. Secured dismissal of state and federal dilution claims in Lanham Act action regarding a consumer product. The court’s decision made new law in the Second Circuit on the issue of whether a valid registration preempts state law claims of dilution.
Daniels v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to J&J in product liability trial related to the company’s talc-based products in St. Louis. The jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims and awarded zero damages.
Allied Lomar, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc. Counsel to Diageo in successful defense of Lanham Act trademark infringement action concerning Blade & Bow Whiskies and the Stitzel-Weller Distillery.
Diageo North America, Inc. v. Mexcor. Trial counsel to plaintiff Diageo in a Lanham Act trade dress infringement and dilution action against competitor involving Crown Royal whisky. Obtained a jury verdict and permanent injunction in favor of our client following a two‑week trial.
In addition to her active practice, Lee regularly contributes to the Firm’s false advertising blog, Watch This Space: Proskauer on Advertising Law. Lee also devotes significant time to pro bono matters, and was recognized by KIND for her work representing two sisters from El Salvador fleeing gang violence.

Before joining Proskauer, Lee served as law clerk to the Honorable Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School.

Contact:Read more about Lee Popkin

We recently posted about the risks associated with veil-piercing claims and the ways in which fund managers can protect themselves from exposure to these claims. Our first post on veil-piercing focused on Delaware standards, while this post discusses California law.

California law differs in several important respects from Delaware law on this topic. If a company is subject to suit in California, there are increased risks even if the company is incorporated elsewhere.  Courts may assert that California law should apply when the plaintiff is a California resident or when the company operates in California.

And where California law applies, courts may aggressively set aside corporate distinctions, leading to unanticipated results.

A veil piercing claim can be a worst-case scenario for a private fund manager dealing with a struggling portfolio company investment – the company fails, and ensuing legal claims are brought not only against the portfolio company, but also against the fund and its GPs. How can fund managers manage that risk?

Limited liability is a hallmark of the corporate structure. Yet the legal doctrines of veil piercing and alter ego permit courts to “pierce” or bypass the corporate structure in order to hold shareholders and directors personally liable for a corporation’s actions or debts.  These doctrines have important implications in the context of a fund that owns large stakes in portfolio companies.