John M. Hindley

John Hindley’s litigation practice includes government enforcement and white-collar defense matters, complex civil litigation and internal investigations. He is particularly experienced in matters arising under the False Claims Act (FCA) and also involved in high-stakes, products liability multidistrict litigation.

Mr. Hindley is strongly committed to the firm’s pro bono mission, particularly in matters involving voting rights and criminal defense.

Mr. Hindley graduated with honors from The George Washington University Law School in 2020. He served as an articles editor for The George Washington Law Review. While in law school, Mr. Hindley served as a judicial intern to Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. During his third year in law school, Mr. Hindley served as a student attorney in Rising for Justice, a legal clinic for indigent individuals, where he represented a client charged with a misdemeanor in DC Superior Court. He received his BA in Political Science and Economics, summa cum laude, from Providence College in 2017.

Experience

Broker-dealer firm in a FINRA investigation involving TRACE reporting and bond pricing.
Major tobacco company in products liability MDL litigation, specifically cases brought by government entities. In re Juul Labs Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO (ND Cal.)
An individual who served as a fact witness for Special Counsel John Durham’s review of the Mueller investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Pharmaceutical company in False Claims Act investigation arising from alleged violations of the Trade Agreements Act.
Endo Pharmaceuticals in a products liability coordinated proceeding in Pennsylvania.

Major national accounting firm in its defense of accountant and auditor malpractice action.
January 6th Committee in enforcing its subpoenas against legal challenges.
A criminal defendant in a post-conviction appeal involving novel questions of criminal law.
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP in challenge to voter identification law as violating the Voting Rights Act. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Circosta, No. 1:18-cv-01034 (MDNC).
South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP in challenge to the state’s Congressional and state house districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander, Case No. 3-21-cv-03302-JMC-TJH-RMG (DSC).