Over the better part of two decades as an attorney and commercial litigator, Mat Harrington has taken more than 20 cases to verdict or arbitration decisions as lead or co-lead counsel, some of which involved claims worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mat has argued numerous appeals and litigated successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has represented individuals and entities in a wide array of industries and in venues ranging from county courthouses to an arbitration in the New York Times building in Manhattan. His practice emphasizes employment law, trust and estate litigation, and Indian law.
His litigation experience is broad, including advocacy for clients in lawsuits involving employment law, noncompete agreements, trusts and estates, fiduciary duties, public disclosure laws, the Public Records Act, antitrust law, class actions, breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and trade secret misappropriation. Mat is frequently called upon to advise professionals and Boards of Directors on disputes involving duties, departures, and responsibilities. He also offers mediation services to parties seeking a neutral’s assistance to mediate a dispute.
Mat handles all aspects of complex litigation—from pre-suit investigation and discovery through dispositive motion practice and trial. He was counsel of record on the briefs in Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, 139 S. Ct. 1000 (2019), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming a case he argued and prevailed on before the Washington Supreme Court, announcing that the Treaty of 1855 granted Yakama Nation members the right to travel the public highways of the United States free from taxes which encumber that treaty right. His representation at trial of a commercially successful tribe helped secure passage of a law allowing tribes to collect significant sales tax receipts from sales occurring on reservations.
In addition to his experience in commercial litigation, Mat has a deep commitment to the public interest, arguing a 2019 case before the Washington Supreme Court in which the State of Washington was required to improve the quality of public defense services provided to indigent juveniles accused of offenses.
