• PDF
  • vcard
D 602.650.2020
F 602.264.7033
  • Education
    • J.D., DePaul University, 1976, DePaul University Law Review, Note and Comment Editor, 1975-76
    • B.A., Knox College, 1969
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. Tax Court,
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1980
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1977
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1980
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1976

Edward Novak’s problem-solving skills, combined with his years of experience, enable him to assist clients facing government investigations in many areas, including health care, banking, securities, environment, education, government contracting, and civil rights. His many community contacts and the recognition of his legal peers give him credibility in dealing with clients’ adversaries. He is frequently called to serve as an expert witness or mediator in disputes involving business and government.

Ed also assists professionals, such as physicians and other licensed health care workers, accountants, securities brokers, and sales people, in state board investigations. He works with lawyers facing discipline investigations and disputes with judges. As a past state bar president and adjunct ethics professor, he is well-versed in helping lawyers and business leaders navigate the sometimes thorny issues facing all of us in an increasingly complex world. Ed serves on the board of a veterans’ homeless shelter and job training center, a charter school focusing on the arts, and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. He is also a member of the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness.

  • Represented plaintiff in personal injury action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6,000,000.
  • Representation of a prestigious national health care organization in a multi-federal district and multi-state investigation into patient billing fraud. The criminal investigation lasted four years ending with a declination of prosecution. A qui tam suit had been filed under seal and the government eventually declined to intervene. Subsequently, the qui tam was dismissed with prejudice. No settlement of any kind was paid to the government or the qui tam relator.
  • Representation of four different Internet pharmacies in DEA and state investigations. The government alleged violations of FDA and state law relating to the dispensing of propecia, zenecal, Viagra and hydrocodone. In each instance, the pharmacy was dispensing legitimate, not counterfeit drugs. None of these investigations resulted in criminal or civil complaints. Also, in each case, the government was convinced that further investigation was unwarranted.
  • Defense of a health care institution in government investigation into improper research grant funding and clinical drug testing. After investigating, the government was persuaded not to proceed with a criminal or civil complaint.
  • Defense of a Big Five accounting firm in multiple simultaneous proceedings in federal and state court involving both civil and criminal investigation
  • Representation of a large national retail securities firm in connection with a federal and state investigation into the fraudulent sale of oil and gas limited partnerships.
  • Representation of a steel manufacturing company in both state and federal investigations of clean air act violations and fraud in the permitting process.
  • Representation of a former CEO of publicly traded company in criminal indictment alleging financial statements and securities fraud as well as false certifications to auditors.
  • Defense of a public company CFO charged with financial statements fraud.
  • Defense of orthopedic physicians in a medical device investigation.
  • Defense of cardiologists in medical device investigation.
  • Defense of one of the nations’ largest retailers in a consumer fraud investigation.
  • Representation of a state agency in an alleged bribery/fraud matter.
  • Defense of a publicly held mutual fund company in connection with a federal fraud probe.
  • Defense of a municipality in a fraud probe alleging civil rights violations.
  • Defense of a national home builder in connection with a multi-district federal and multistate investigation of Clean Water Act violations.
  • Defense of an accounting firm partner in state and federal criminal investigation of public corruption charges.
  • Defense of real estate development companies in Department of Interior land exchange investigations.
  • Defense of a local health care institution in connection with alleged illegal anti-union activities.
  • Expert witness testimony on issues of ineffective representation in criminal cases and legal malpractice in civil cases.
Related News