• Share
  • Email
  • Print
  • Font Size

Michael K. Ryan

Partner
Seattle
+1.206.370.8023
Fax +1..206.370.6287

Primary Practice

Secondary Practices

Education

  • J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2001, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Executive Editor Georgetown Law Journal, Criminal Procedure Project and Distinguished Service Award, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Research Assistant to Vicki C. Jackson and Viet D. Dinh
  • B.A., Rutgers University, 1996, with high honors, Undergraduate Fellow in the Eagleton Institute of Politics, Cross Country and Track & Field (Captain)

Admissions

  • Bar of Washington
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
  • Biography Overview
  • Additional Background
  • Representative Work
Mr. Ryan is a litigator who focuses on appellate and constitutional litigation. Mr. Ryan represents and counsels both governmental and private clients on a broad range of constitutional issues including the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. Mr. Ryan has significant appellate and trial experience and has briefed and argued cases before numerous federal and state courts. Mr. Ryan also has significant experience representing numerous clients in the area of product liability and toxic tort defense. In addition, Mr. Ryan represents clients on complex commercial matters, governmental and regulatory investigations and in disputes against the Internal Revenue Service.

Professional Background

Before joining the firm, Michael served as law clerk to the Honorable Frank J. Magill of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. While in law school, Michael successfully argued an ineffective assistance of counsel case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Additionally, Michael worked extensively with professors in preparing two amicus briefs filed with the Unites States Supreme Court. Prior to law school, Michael worked for the Justice Department as a district adjudications officer in the Newark office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Achievements

  • Rising Star – First Amendment/Media/Advertising – Washington Law & Politics (2009, 2010, 2011)
  • Jim Ellis Pro Bono Award (2007)

Professional/Civic Activities

  • Seward Park Environmental & Audubon Center – Board Member

Speaking Engagements

  • “Civil Liberties 101: Street Speech,” ACLU of Washington Speaker Series (July 2009)
  • “Religion and Public Facilities,” Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys (April 2007).
  • “First Amendment Pitfalls in the Regulation of Signs,” International Municipal Lawyers Association Conference, with Timothy Sercombe (September 2006).
  • Shannahan v. I.R.S., -- F.3d --, 2012 WL 807096 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2012), represented individual in FOIA matter against Internal Revenue Service at both trial and appellate level.
  • Banks v. City of Ocean Shores, (pending before Wash. Ct. App., Div. 2), represented municipality in defense of jury verdict in its favor on the question of whether a particular charge was a valid regulatory fee instead of an unconstitutional tax.
  • Avis Budget Group, Inc. v. City of Newark, (pending before N.J. Ct. App.), represented rental car companies in dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Newark’s tax on rental cars.
  • Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition v. City of Seattle, 550 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2008), successfully argued and briefed that Seattle’s Parade Ordinance was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it provide the Seattle Chief of Police with too much discretion in making permitting decisions.
  • Steven N.S. Cheung, Inc. v. United States, 545 F.3d 695 (9th Cir. 2008), briefed and argued issue of first impression on the interpretation of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code.
  • Card v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2008), successfully defended an Establishment Clause and Article 1, section 11 claim against the city of Everett in defense of an historical marker located on City property. This case was the Ninth Circuit’s first opportunity to address the constitutionality of Ten Commandments’ monuments on public property.
  • United States v. Manning , 527 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2008), successfully represented Intervenor in challenge to Washington’s Cleanup Priority Act on preemption and constitutional grounds. Before the district court, successfully represented Intervenor in challenging the Act on Contract Clause, Commerce Clause and other constitutional grounds. United States v. Manning, 434 F. Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Wash. 2006).
  • Successfully represented video game developer in bet-the-company arbitration against the largest video game publisher in the United States and established developer’s exclusive right to control future development and publication of its video game franchise.
  • Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), addressed First Amendment issues relating to anonymous speech on behalf of company seeking discovery.
  • Reliance Insurance Company v. Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P., (2004 WL 838634 Del. Super.), represented insured in its action to recover against Washington State Guaranty Association.
  • Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Reed, 154 Wash.2d 668, 115 P.3d 301 (2005), prepared amicus brief on behalf of the League of Education Voters and the Washington Association of School Administrators, successfully supporting the state Legislature’s declaration of a legislative “emergency.”
  • City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., 152 Wash.2d 343, 96 P.3d 979 (2004), prepared amicus brief on behalf of musicians and artists challenging Seattle’s anti-posting ordinance.
  • Steven N.S. Cheung Inc. v. United States, 2006 WL 3042938 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (and related citations), successfully represented company against IRS in “wrongful levy” bench trial and in recovery of a significant amount of attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • Helenius v. Chelius, 120 P.3d 954 (Wash. App. 2005), successfully briefed issue of whether after-the-fact conduct could be considered “in connection with” the sale or purchase of a security under Washington State Securities Act.
  • United States v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 2000), successfully argued ineffective assistance of counsel claim on behalf of indigent prisoner.
© 2012 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.  |