Linda E. Maichl

Retired Partner

Linda E. Maichl

Retired Partner

Linda retired in 2021 after 32 years. Linda was an experienced appellate attorney in class-action, multidistrict, and mass-tort litigation involving drugs, medical devices, and dietary supplements in both state and federal courts. For more than twenty years, she was a member of the national defense counsel team at Ulmer representing clients in mass tort litigation nationwide involving products such as propoxyphene, isotretinoin, metoclopramide, fen/phen, ephedra, ADHD medications, hormone replacement therapy products, oral contraceptives, and antidepressants. Her work in the tens of thousands of lawsuits avoided trials by obtaining dismissals or orders granting judgment as a matter of law in the vast majority of those lawsuits. She handled numerous appeals spawned by those dismissals in state and federal appellate courts nationwide.

She was the key contributor in developing, and painstakingly supporting, the constitutional argument that the federal law governing generic pharmaceutical products precludes state-law claims against manufacturers of those products premised on product warnings and design. After advancing that constitutional argument in state and federal trial and appellate courts for over a decade, she ultimately secured review of that important, and ground-breaking, issue by the United States Supreme Court. In PLIVA v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company v. Bartlett, the United States Supreme Court agreed that federal law precludes state-law inadequate warning and defective design claims involving generic pharmaceutical products. Those rulings have spawned new legal theories and Linda’s extensive trial- and appellate-level work throughout the country litigating those challenges to the preemption rulings in Mensing and Bartlett has shaped the landscape of litigation involving the pharmaceuticals industry.

Linda also counseled a range of clients regarding administrative and federal regulatory compliance matters, including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for marketing products and compliance with manufacturing, marketing, and advertising regulations. Clients relied on Linda’s intimate knowledge of complex FDA regulations and the legislative history of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to navigate potential regulatory pitfalls and maintain positions of strength in highly competitive industries.

Education & Admissions


  • University of Cincinnati

    (B.B.A., 1984)

  • University of Cincinnati

    (M.B.A., 1988)

  • University of Cincinnati College of Law

    (J.D., 1989)
    Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Law Review (1988-89); Law Review (1987-88); American Jurisprudence Award – Professional Responsibility; John R. Sayler Prize – Commercial Paper; College of Law Merit Scholarship (1986-87 and 1987-88); Dudley V. Sutphin Scholarship


  • State of Ohio
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee

Publications & Presentations


  • “Preemption as a Defense in Pharmaceutical Litigation,” IADC Newsletter, Drug, Device & Biotech Committee (March 2004)
  • “Federal Preemption: An Affirmative Defense in Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Litigation Cases,” Course Materials for Mealey’s Defense Strategies for Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation Conference (February 2003)
  • “Protective Orders in Litigation Involving Sensitive Company Information:  It Is Possible to Enforce Them Even After the Litigation is Over,” IADC Newsletter, Drug, Device & Biotech Committee (June 2001)
  • “The Learned Intermediary Doctrine: A Defense Perspective,” Course Materials for Ritalin Litigation Seminar, American Conference Institute, New York City (March 2001)
  • “Toxic Tort Law in Ohio,” Course Materials, Co-Author with Kim K. Burke and Jonathan P. Saxton, National Business Institute (July 2000)
  • “The Jurisdictional Aspects of Litigation Involving International Clients,” Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Winter 1995)
  • “The Jurisdictional Aspects of Litigation Involving International Clients: Everything You Need to Know About Achieving and Defending Against Jurisdiction, the Hague Convention, Service of Process and Forum Selection Clauses,” FICC Mid-Winter Meeting Course Materials (1993)
  • “Joining Foreign Entities as 3d-Party Defendants,” Leader’s Products Liability Law and Strategy, Vol. XI, No. 1 (July 1992)
  • Note, “Constitutionality of State Regulations Allowing Withdrawal of Voting Rights of Control Shares in a Tender Offer: CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 107 S. Ct. 1637 (1987),” 57 Univ. of Cincinnati Law Review 789 (1988)



  • American Bar Association (Business Section, Litigation Section, Administrative Law Section, and Antitrust Section)
  • Ohio State Bar Association
  • Cincinnati Bar Association



  • Named a “State Litigation Star” in Ohio by Benchmark Litigation (2017-2022)
  • BV Distinguished® Peer Review Rated – Martindale-Hubbell®