During his 15-year legal career, Chris Wilson has practiced adeptly in both the public and private sectors, gaining experience and perspective from all angles of antitrust law. After starting out as an associate at a prominent global law firm, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division in February 2015. At the DOJ, he played a key role in numerous high-profile matters, including merger reviews for Halliburton-Baker Hughes, Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna, Alaska Airlines-Virgin and CVS-Aetna. “Government service is a great way to supercharge your practical experience,” he says. “From day one, you will get opportunities to take depositions, argue at trial, and own substantive cases, all while developing courtroom judgment, case strategy and credibility with judges – foundations that translate directly to excellent client advocacy in private practice.”
Having gained deep expertise at the DOJ, Wilson reentered private practice in August 2018, and since last summer has served as a partner in the Antitrust Practice at Paul, Weiss, in Washington, D.C. “In antitrust, it’s very common for people to go back and forth between the private side and the government side,” he notes. “The benefit is that you get to see things from both sides.”
Wilson's passion for antitrust is unmistakable – he speaks about antitrust with palpable energy. He relishes the intellectual rigor of the field and the real‑world stakes for consumers and competition, and his enthusiasm is infectious. Whether in government or private practice, he’s motivated by the chance to protect competition and guide his clients through high‑stakes decisions. At Paul, Weiss, he advises clients on a wide range of antitrust matters, including merger control, cross-border antitrust investigations, and private party litigation involving complex antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Wilson, a member of The Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, spoke recently to Lawdragon about his career in both government and Big Law.
Lawdragon: What trends are you seeing in antitrust litigation these days?
Chris Wilson: Lately, there’s been an increase in two kinds of litigation. For one, companies have been initiating lawsuits against competitors over allegedly unfair business tactics. I think we’ve seen a multi-year increase in that. Competitors are examining business tactics like exclusivity arrangements, bundled discounts, most-favored nations clauses, lack of interoperability, or predatory pricing, and claiming that these tactics are illegal monopolization.
We’re also starting to see more litigation by customers against their suppliers or vendors, also alleging either monopolization or unfair business tactics. Historically, antitrust claims by customers against their suppliers or vendors were less common compared to breach of contract or other causes of action. With more commercial counterparties, customers, vendors and suppliers getting into litigation based on antitrust theories of harm, this could contribute to a rise in antitrust litigation overall – and new litigants that you would not normally see on the plaintiff side.
Competitors are examining business tactics like exclusivity arrangements, bundled discounts, most-favored nations clauses, lack of interoperability, or predatory pricing, and claiming that these tactics are illegal monopolization.
LD: Are consumers gathering up into class actions, or is it more like, “Hey, you’re directly making my vendor prices higher?”
CW: I would say more class actions have lately been along the lines of the second trend I mentioned: consumers alleging antitrust theories of harm based on any theory under the sun. The class action vehicle is appealing for plaintiffs’ lawyers because there’s the potential prospect of significant liability. It’s always going to be appealing for the plaintiffs’ bar to come up with new innovative theories of harm to support their class action suits.
LD: How about government enforcement actions? What are you seeing there?
CW: A few things. One is the current administration does seem to be interested in maintaining monopolization cases under Section Two of the Sherman Act. That seems to be an area where they’re committed to developing the body of case law and it continues to be a very active part of the government’s docket.
We’re also seeing a renewed government focus on conduct, by which I mean allegations of price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation, things like that. We’re seeing them continue to investigate a number of sectors to determine whether companies have fixed prices or have colluded in competitive bidding.
We’re also seeing somewhat of a decrease in the government’s activity when it comes to proposed mergers and acquisitions, especially as compared to the prior administration. This is partly due to the current administration reviewing cases they inherited from the outgoing one and coming to a different conclusion about the merits of going forward, but also being more selective about the deals that they believe warrant in-depth investigation.
LD: Are there any industries that seem to be getting a lot of action in particular, either on the government or private side?
CW: With the government, for sure. The government’s been very candid and open about its continued interest in large technology companies, particularly ones that the government thinks may be able to influence public discourse or act as a “public forum.” I think they’re going to continue to be interested in that.
They’re also generally interested in what FTC Commissioner Mark Meador called “kitchen table issues” – anything that consumers purchase directly: food, gasoline and consumer products, for example. If the consumer is going to immediately and viscerally feel a price increase or perceived lack of competition, then the government is continuing to be interested in competitive conditions in those markets.
LD: Can you talk about the cases that you’re currently working on?
CW: Unfortunately, a lot of what I work on is very non-public. What I will say, though, is that much of my docket these days is more government-facing and involves dealing with conduct and monopolization investigations. Litigation continues to be active, but I spend most of my time these days dealing with the DOJ or the FTC.
We’re seeing a renewed government focus on conduct, including allegations of price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation.
LD: What drew you to serve in the Department of Justice? And what was that experience like?
CW: Government service, particularly in antitrust, is a good way to quickly get hands-on, front-line litigation experience that sharpens core advocacy skills, hones judgment under pressure, and builds the strategic instincts that drive efficient, results‑oriented litigation.
As an antitrust lawyer, it’s also hugely beneficial to spend time in both private practice and government work – doing so allows you to see things from both sides. When you’re on the private side, knowing how the DOJ, the FTC, or state attorneys general might respond to what your client wants to do – or in some cases has already done – makes you a much more capable advisor for your clients.
LD: What are some lessons you learned from government that you still use today?
CW: It’s twofold. Most importantly, government service really gave me a thorough understanding of the process, by which I mean the steps between when an investigation is initiated and when it is terminated. Now that I’m in the private sector, the knowledge I gained on when investigations are initiated helps me advise clients on what they should or should not be doing, to make sure that they stay out of trouble with the government. If they’re contemplating a merger, for example, they’ll want to know the market shares that will make the government scrutinize their transaction. It’s really being able to tell the client, “Look, if you do this, this is what we expect to happen,” and saying it with confidence.
On the opposite end of that spectrum, if you’re on the private side and trying to get the government to close down an investigation, you’ll want to know the boxes they’re going to have to check off. If it’s a merger, you’ll need to know what to say to convince the government that this merger is not going to harm competition. You’ll also need to know what kinds of evidence will be most persuasive to the government to support that position. These are just some of the factors you come to understand exceptionally well when you’re inside the government. Then, when you move to the private sector, this experience makes you better able to inform your client, both to protect them from doing things they shouldn’t and, if they’re already in the thick of it, getting them through that investigation to a good outcome in the least painful way.
LD: What are some of the most memorable cases in your career?
CW: On the private side, one that was very memorable was representing Pioneer Natural Resources, which was acquired by ExxonMobil in 2024. There were two primary challenges. One was that we were dealing with the prior administration and they were extremely zealous on merger enforcement, particularly when it came to the energy sector. We were dealing with an FTC staff that had the directive from on high to scrutinize our merger really closely. Despite that, I think we were able to have a very productive working relationship with the FTC through the course of the investigation.
The other challenge was what we call landing the plane. Sometimes, unexpected issues arise during the course of an investigation, and the goal then is to make sure that this doesn’t stop you from landing the plane. That means understanding the dimension and scope of the concern and figuring out, quickly and effectively, a resolution that permits the deal to close.
As an antitrust lawyer, it’s hugely beneficial to spend time in both private practice and government work – doing so allows you to see things from both sides.
On the government side, I’ll highlight Aetna’s proposal to buy another health insurer called Humana. This was under the Obama administration. That was one of the cases we took all the way to trial, so I was part of the investigations team and part of the trial team. I was getting witnesses ready for depositions, putting witnesses on at trial and arguing in front of the judge. That was the first time I had some real stand-up practical courtroom experience. The DOJ ultimately secured an injunction blocking the merger from going forward.
LD: What drew you to Paul, Weiss?
CW: Paul, Weiss has an incredible platform. I think we’re incredibly dynamic in terms of looking for new markets, new clients and new opportunities. We have smart and aggressive leadership that doesn’t let the firm rest on its laurels. They understand that we can’t be complacent and assume the industry is going to look the same 50 years from now. We’re looking to grow, change and evolve as this industry and our clients grow, change and evolve. That’s an exciting thing to be a part of.
LD: Where did you first get the idea to become a lawyer?
CW: I started college thinking I was going to go into something like finance or banking. When I got a taste, I didn’t think either was for me and pivoted to management consulting. After a couple of years, I realized I liked the qualitative and verbal part of consulting, not so much the quantitative, number-crunching part of the job. I thought, “Okay, if I prefer to read and to write, and to talk and discuss, what should I be pursuing that leans into that interest?” By thinking about what the highest and best use of my skills were, it became clear that my natural direction should be into law.
LD: Did you have any particularly memorable mentors, and is mentorship an important part of the work that you do now?
CW: One that stands out for me at DOJ was a trial attorney named John Read. He had been at the antitrust division for decades. When I got to the division, he took a vested interest in making sure I was getting good experience and was learning. He also made sure I was pushing the boundaries of what I was comfortable with so I could grow as an attorney. If you’re doing something new and different, and you’re feeling uncomfortable, or even a bit scared, then you’re probably growing and expanding your capabilities. And that’s a good thing, even if it’s unpleasant in the moment.
I do try to pay that forward, too. Because looking back on my career, there were many, many things I could have done differently or done better, mistakes that I made that I don’t want to see the next generation make. As much as I can, I try to talk to junior attorneys about my career and what I think I could have done better.
LD: Such as?
CW: I wish I had, over the course of my career, been more intentional about my goals. I think I could have done a better job of being more goal-oriented and long-range in my thinking, as opposed to just reacting to things. Today, when I speak to younger attorneys, I really emphasize that they should be thoughtful about their careers, move with intention, have goals, and identify the milestones necessary to reach those goals.
