Nathan D. Finch
Nate Finch brings almost twenty years of experience in complex civil litigation and trial work to Motley Rice. With a diverse background, as well as strong trial and negotiation skills, he holds a central role in the firm’s work representing clients in various asbestos, toxic tort, commercial, securities fraud and other complex cases. Nate has served as the lead trial attorney for his clients in many federal or state court trials and is sought after by co-counsel seeking advice on challenging cases and complex legal matters.
Nate’s thorough knowledge of asbestos and medical issues is an asset to the firm’s occupational disease and toxic tort clients. He has obtained plaintiffs' verdicts in cases against asbestos product manufacturer defendants and cigarette makers. In asbestos cases, he has extensive experience trying cases involving a wide variety of asbestos-containing products, including gaskets, automotive brakes, floor tiles, joint compounds, and various forms of insulation. He also has years of experience representing individuals, companies and creditors’ committees in personal injury litigation, mass torts products liability litigation, securities and financial fraud litigation and an array of other complex litigation cases ranging from single plaintiffs’ products liability cases to high-stakes business disputes.
Prior to joining Motley Rice, Nate was a partner for more than ten years in a Washington, D.C.-based law firm and frequently collaborated with Motley Rice attorneys in trials and negotiations to resolve large asbestos product manufacturers’ bankruptcies. He tried numerous cases in federal district courts focusing on the medical and scientific factors associated with asbestos-related diseases and asbestos exposure. During this time, he also tried and helped to resolve in favor of his clients five asbestos bankruptcy cases, each having more than $1 billion at stake. In addition, Nate worked closely with Motley Rice attorneys on behalf of investors in In re MBNA Securities Litigation and In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation.
Nate’s understanding of the factual and legal challenges inherent in complex cases, combined with his trial experience, has positioned him as a considerable resource within many practice areas. A frequently invited speaker regarding a variety of legal matters, he has spoken at many asbestos litigation and bankruptcy conferences and has been a guest lecturer at the Georgetown University, George Washington University and University of Baltimore law schools on topics relating to civil procedure, mass tort litigation and the differences between litigating in Article III and Article I courts.
Recognized as a Martindale Hubbell® AV® rated attorney, Nate was named a “Local Litigation Star" in the 2012 and 2013 editions of Benchmark Plaintiff, The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Plaintiff Firms & Attorneys in its Washington, D.C., rankings in product liability and securities. He was additionally recognized as a “Local Litigation Star” in the 2013 fifth annual edition of Benchmark Litigation, The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys for his work in civil litigation, creditors’ rights and white-collar crime. Nate was selected by his peers for inclusion in both the 2012 and 2013 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers® lists and was also ranked a "Top Lawyer” in the 2009 and 2010 editions of Chambers USA in bankruptcy and restructuring. He is a member of the American Association for Justice and The Barristers. A graduate of the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia School of Law, Nate was a member of the Virginia Law Review and the Order of the Coif.
In addition to his professional activities, Nate has served his community for many years through volunteer activities coordinated by Greater D.C. Cares, an organization committed to connecting volunteers with community service groups. He is a former scholarship track and cross country athlete at UVA.
* Please remember that every case is different. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.