Oberheiden P.C.

Focus and practice areas

The practice here is built around federal matters, and it runs under two names: Oberheiden P.C. and the brand Federal Lawyer. That second name signals where the work sits. The firm handles government investigations, white-collar defense, corporate compliance, and litigation in federal courts. Much of what it describes involves clients who already face government scrutiny, or who want to prepare before scrutiny arrives.

The specific work runs across several categories. On the defense side, the firm addresses grand jury subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and False Claims Act cases. On the regulatory side, it covers SEC and FINRA investigations, IRS audits, and healthcare audits and compliance. It also takes on business disputes, including shareholder and partnership disputes, along with securities litigation.

In my opinion, the through-line is federal exposure. A firm that lists both False Claims Act matters and FINRA investigations is describing a practice aimed at people and companies dealing with regulators and prosecutors, rather than everyday consumer legal needs. That focus is stated plainly across the home, practice, and about pages, which gives a reader a clear sense of fit.

How the team is built

The staffing model leans on prior government service. The attorneys and consultants include former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors, former Assistant U.S. Attorneys, a former U.S. Attorney, and former federal agents. For a client facing a federal investigation, lawyers who once worked on the government side bring a view of how those cases are put together.

Dr. Nick Oberheiden founded the firm in 2010 and continues to practice as an attorney there. Lynette S. Byrd serves as Managing Partner and is described as a former Department of Justice trial attorney and former Assistant U.S. Attorney. Nicholas B. Johnson holds the title of Chief Litigation Counsel and is described as a former prosecutor. Together they anchor the day-to-day litigation and the running of the practice.

The senior attorneys

The senior group covers a range of subjects. John W. Sellers is a former senior Department of Justice trial attorney. Brian J. Kuester is a former U.S. Attorney. Linda Julin McNamara focuses on federal appeals and is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. Ellen Comley works on healthcare compliance and litigation, and Pascual C. Meyer handles corporate transactions and healthcare compliance, holding both J.D. and LL.M. degrees.

Two senior attorneys, Alina Veneziano and Paul Strickland, list blockchain among their subjects. Veneziano pairs blockchain with tax and litigation, and Strickland pairs it with litigation. That is a narrower and newer area than the firm's core federal defense work, and its presence suggests the practice has reached into digital-asset questions.

The names listed as of counsel

The firm names two widely recognized figures as of counsel. The Hon. Mike Pompeo, a former U.S. Secretary of State, is listed in that role. The Hon. Trey Gowdy, a former member of Congress and former congressional chairman, is listed the same way. Of counsel is a defined relationship, and it usually means an ongoing association rather than a partner's daily caseload.

As a reviewer, I read these listings as a signal of the firm's federal orientation more than a promise about who will handle a given file. A reader weighing the firm should ask, at intake, which attorneys would actually staff their matter. That is a fair question to put to any firm that lists high-profile of counsel names.

What the record shows

The firm makes a few claims about its reach. It states that clients from 48 states have retained it. It reports having handled more than 2,000 cases. It also describes working with a network of independent local counsel across the country, which is how a federal practice can appear in courts far from its home base.

These are the firm's own figures, published on its site, rather than numbers verified here. I note them as claims a reader can weigh, and as the kind of detail that is reasonable to raise during a consultation. A firm that works across state lines through local counsel is describing a common structure for federal work, and it is worth confirming how that arrangement would apply to a specific case.

Where the firm operates

The site's account of location is not fully consistent, so a reader should confirm the office that applies to them. The about page states offices in Houston and New York, with meeting locations available by appointment elsewhere. A separate footer disclaimer refers to the firm as headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with offices in Dallas and Houston. The site's structured data lists a Phoenix, Arizona location.

None of that changes the nature of the practice, which is federal and national in scope. It does mean a prospective client should ask directly where their meetings and filings would be handled. In my opinion, that one clarifying question resolves most of the ambiguity the public pages leave open.

Who might find this firm relevant

The clearest fit is a person or business facing federal attention. That includes a company served with a civil investigative demand, a professional under SEC or FINRA review, a healthcare provider in an audit, or a taxpayer in an IRS dispute. The firm also handles shareholder and partnership disputes and securities litigation, so business conflicts with a federal dimension belong here too.

The practice is defined by former government lawyers, a stated 2010 founding, and a caseload the firm describes as national. For a reader who wants counsel focused on investigations and regulatory matters rather than general local practice, this listing gives enough detail to judge fit and to arrive at a consultation with the right questions ready.