In high-stakes corporate litigation, representation is expected to be fierce, relentless, and uncompromising. This is especially true in the biotechnology sector, where companies compete intensely to deliver life-saving diagnostic tests to patients and physicians. But when a bet the company lawsuit follows, the pressure to win can create a dangerous temptation to let aggressive advocacy cross the line into unethical behavior. Recent developments in the long-running dispute between Guardant Health and Natera offer a stark object lesson in the severe consequences of crossing that boundary.
After a bruising, years-long litigation battle, Guardant prevailed in November 2024, when a jury in the Northern District of California returned a verdict of over a quarter of a billion dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against Natera for false advertising. The fallout from the case extended far beyond the jury’s verdict, however.
In May 2026, Judge Edward Chen issued his final ruling on a motion for sanctions against Natera’s counsel, attorneys at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, determining the firm owed Guardant approximately three million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages stemming from the firm’s profound failure to abide by the fundamental duties of candor and diligence. Judge Chen imposed other non-monetary sanctions on the firm and the individual attorneys involved.
The misconduct centered on a critical piece of evidence. During the litigation, Natera’s counsel introduced a late-filed supplemental expert report containing embargoed clinical study results, but failed to disclose when the expert obtained the data and any documents pertaining to the study. Given the study’s significance in the oncology community, and recognizing the irregularity, Guardant’s trial team at Keller Anderle Scolnick persistently pursued discovery regarding the timeline and acquisition of this data. Rather than transparency, our team was met with resistance and further non-disclosure.
Ultimately, KAS uncovered the truth by subpoenaing a third party. The resulting records revealed extensive correspondence demonstrating that the expert had improperly obtained the embargoed information relied upon in his report, and that he had done so months earlier than Quinn Emanuel had claimed to the Court.
Because of this targeted, persistent advocacy, the wrongdoing was brought to light. In penalizing the conduct, Judge Chen did not mince words: “At virtually every juncture in this misadventure, these attorneys turned a blind eye to the truth, deliberately failed to exercise diligence, violated their duties of candor to the Court, and then attempted to justify it — without basis.” The Court concluded this pattern of behavior “implicates a culture of lawyering that is deeply disturbing.”
In addition to the three-million-dollar financial penalty—which includes personal liabilities for individual lawyers—the Court ordered the firm to develop and deploy a mandatory eight-hour ethics course for the responsible attorneys. The Court also ruled in the lead-up to trial it would issue a “negative inference” instruction to the jury if Natera decided to have the expert testify at trial, even if it was limited to other issues unrelated to the study. Such an instruction would have been devastating to the expert’s credibility at trial; Natera decided to withdraw the expert from trial entirely.
For a massive, high-profile firm, this outcome raises critical questions for corporate clients: Why did the trial team cross the line from zealous advocacy into bad-faith conduct? Why didn’t internal safeguards catch the error?
Complex commercial litigation produces immense pressure to achieve specific outcomes. Attorneys who are not anchored by a firm culture that believes in the absolute primacy of ethical obligations may attempt to “bend the rules,” even when breaking those rules jeopardizes their client’s cause.
Great trial lawyers know there is no substitute for credibility. A reputation for integrity takes decades to build and minutes to destroy. When a judge loses faith in an attorney’s word, or when an adversary exposes a false representation, the client bears the ultimate risk. Beyond monetary sanctions, unethical conduct invites catastrophic trial outcomes, including adverse inference instructions, the exclusion of vital evidence, or even terminating sanctions.
The best trial lawyers win through superior strategy, exhaustive preparation, and masterful courtroom presentation—never by subverting the rules of fair play. At Keller Anderle Scolnick, we pride ourselves on being formidable, fearsome advocates who never back down from a complex legal fight. But we achieve our victories by out-preparing and out-strategizing the opposition—making our case with absolute integrity.
Bring us your toughest case. We’ll get the job done.