Christopher Paul Galanek

Christopher Paul Galanek
  1. People /

Christopher Paul Galanek

Christopher Paul Galanek

Senior Trial Counsel


Atlanta
Christopher Paul Galanek
  1. People /

Christopher Paul Galanek

Christopher Paul Galanek

Senior Trial Counsel


Atlanta

Christopher Paul Galanek

Senior Trial Counsel

Atlanta

T: +1 404 572 6979

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Chris Galanek is a trial lawyer. He handles complex commercial litigation matters and arbitrations involving business disputes, unfair competition, and breaches of fiduciary duty and employment disputes.

A significant portion of Chris’ practice is litigating claims arising out of employment relationships, including discrimination and retaliation claims, whistle blower claims and wage disputes. For more than 25 years he has also litigated the enforceability of noncompetition and non-solicitation covenants and litigating trade secret disputes in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Chris also frequently advises clients on the protection of their trade secrets, the scope of proper post-employment restrictions and the competitive recruitment of employees.

The various complex litigation matters handled by Chris in the last several years include consumer class actions and class arbitrations for electronic payment processers and financial institutions; disputes between payment processers, ISO’s, MSP’s and merchants; unfair competition and false advertising claims, and real estate and eminent domain disputes.  

Chris is familiar with, and has participated in, various forms of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration both as an advocate and as a neutral.

Civic Involvement & Honors

  • Chambers USA, Georgia, Commercial Litigation (2015-2023)
  • Georgia Super Lawyer (2007-2023)
  • Leadership North Fulton – Class of 2007
  • The Marist School – Booster Club Board, 2009-2014; Vice President of Communications (2013-2014).
  • Northside Youth Organization – Baseball Coach (2001-2014)
  • Board Member Whitehead Boys and Girls Club (2010-2013)

Professional Affiliations

  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Bar Association
  • Bleckley Inn of Court, Master

Admissions

  • Georgia, 1991

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

    United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, District of Colorado, Eastern, Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia, Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern and Western Districts of North Carolina

    Supreme Court of Georgia

    Georgia Court of Appeals

    Superior Court of North Carolina

Education

University of Georgia, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, 1991

University of Georgia, B.B.A., 1986

Related Practice Areas

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Employment & Labor

  • Real Estate

  • Sports & Entertainment

  • Eminent Domain

  • Real Estate Disputes

  • Non-Compete, Trade Secret & Employee Unfair Competition

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Employment Class & Collective Actions

  • Cross-border Employment Issues

  • Sports & Event Financing

  • Sports & Entertainment Contract, Endorsement & Celebrity Representation Practice

  • Anti-Doping Practice

  • Sports & Event Venue Real Estate Infrastructure and Operation

  • Naming Rights & Sponsorship Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment M&A Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice

  • Collegiate Sports Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Specialty Counseling Practice

  • Entertainment Industry Practice

  • Olympic & National Governing Body Practice

  • Professional Sports Team Practice

Resources

Publications

  • "A Re-Evaluation of Arbitration in Light of Class Actions and Appeal Rights: Is it Still Worth It?" Georgia Bar Journal, vol. II, no. I, co-authored with Jennifer Dempsey, 2005
  • "Recent Developments Regarding the American Arbitration Association's Interpretation of its Class Action Rules," PoGo Alert, 2004
  • "The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney Client Privilege," 24 L. Rev. 1115, 1990

Speaking Engagements

  • “Trade Secret and Competitive Restriction Update,” 23rd Annual National Intellectual Property Entertainment and Sports Law Symposium, 2011
  • "Reactive Covenants in Georgia; Be Afraid, Very Afraid," The Kettering Group Quarterly Meeting, 2007
  • "The Nuts and Bolts of Post-Employment Competition Restrictions in Georgia," Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, 2007
  • "Building and Protecting Your Workforce," RCB Eagles Discussion Panel, 2007

Related Insights

News
Jun 01, 2023

Chambers USA 2023

Awards
Jun 01, 2022

Chambers USA 2022

Awards
May 20, 2021

Chambers USA 2021

Insights
Sep 08, 2020

Back to Work: California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy

On August 28, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a new plan for the reopening of California’s economy following the closures ordered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which replaced the county watch list system that was previously in effect. The new plan provides for a four-tier system in which counties must show consistent progress in reducing the transmission of the coronavirus before allowing for greater flexibility in the reopening of businesses, schools, and resuming group activities. The stated intent of the plan is to be “statewide, stringent and slow,” and to impose uniform limits on what businesses can be open depending on a county’s infection rates.
Insights
Apr 27, 2020

Back to Work: Georgia's Reopening Executive Order – Risks and Guidance for Businesses

On April 20, 2020, Governor Brian Kemp signed an Executive Order which initiates the process of reopening businesses within the State of Georgia on April 24, 2020, and issued a subsequent Executive Order on April 23, 2020, providing further guidance on the process for reopening (collectively the “Orders”). These Orders, which are quite limited in scope, only grant a small subset of businesses permission to reopen. They do, however, pre-empt all local and city orders that are more or less restrictive than the state-wide Orders.  The Orders, while limited, nevertheless shed light on what the process of reopening will look like for additional business sectors going forward. All companies with locations in Georgia would be wise to invest time planning how they may implement screening, sanitation, and social distancing at their workplace to allow for a timely, safe and compliant reopening.  This Alert will examine what businesses are permitted to reopen, what restrictions exist for those businesses, and advice and guidance for companies that we anticipate will be affected by similar reopening orders in the future.
Awards
Apr 23, 2020

Chambers USA 2020

Insights
Apr 09, 2020

Avoiding Negligence Per Se Claims For Non-Compliance With Social Distancing Orders In The U.S.

The measures implemented by state and local governments in response to the spread of COVID-19 vary widely, from suggested guidelines to mandatory shelter-in-place orders. The more extreme measures generally require the closure of non-essential businesses and a reduction in operations for essential businesses. For example, municipalities ranging from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. and states like Michigan and Wisconsin, among others, have all adopted substantially similar orders that largely close non-essential businesses (except, in some cases, for “minimum basic operations”) and require essential businesses or infrastructure to comply with various social distancing requirements “to the greatest extent feasible” or “possible.” Many of these orders are enforceable through the threat of criminal penalties, including fines and incarceration. Among other things, the social distancing provisions generally include maintaining at least six feet of distance between employees and members of the public, including when customers are standing in line. Some orders, such as Wisconsin’s order, mandate that essential businesses “shall, to the greatest extent possible,” avoid in-person meetings through virtual conferences and telecommuting. Others require compliance with guidelines issued by federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, or limit the number of employees that can work in the same building at a given time. For instance, Georgia’s statewide order prohibits any gathering of more than ten people in a single location if they are not separated by at least six feet.

Related Insights

Awards
Aug 17, 2023
The Best Lawyers in America® 2024
News
Jun 01, 2023
Chambers USA 2023
Awards
Jun 01, 2022
Chambers USA 2022
News
Mar 21, 2022
BCLP advises Stonebridge Companies in investment transaction with TowerBrook
Awards
May 20, 2021
Chambers USA 2021
Insights
Sep 08, 2020
Back to Work: California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy
On August 28, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a new plan for the reopening of California’s economy following the closures ordered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which replaced the county watch list system that was previously in effect. The new plan provides for a four-tier system in which counties must show consistent progress in reducing the transmission of the coronavirus before allowing for greater flexibility in the reopening of businesses, schools, and resuming group activities. The stated intent of the plan is to be “statewide, stringent and slow,” and to impose uniform limits on what businesses can be open depending on a county’s infection rates.
Insights
Apr 27, 2020
Back to Work: Georgia's Reopening Executive Order – Risks and Guidance for Businesses
On April 20, 2020, Governor Brian Kemp signed an Executive Order which initiates the process of reopening businesses within the State of Georgia on April 24, 2020, and issued a subsequent Executive Order on April 23, 2020, providing further guidance on the process for reopening (collectively the “Orders”). These Orders, which are quite limited in scope, only grant a small subset of businesses permission to reopen. They do, however, pre-empt all local and city orders that are more or less restrictive than the state-wide Orders.  The Orders, while limited, nevertheless shed light on what the process of reopening will look like for additional business sectors going forward. All companies with locations in Georgia would be wise to invest time planning how they may implement screening, sanitation, and social distancing at their workplace to allow for a timely, safe and compliant reopening.  This Alert will examine what businesses are permitted to reopen, what restrictions exist for those businesses, and advice and guidance for companies that we anticipate will be affected by similar reopening orders in the future.
Awards
Apr 23, 2020
Chambers USA 2020
Insights
Apr 09, 2020
Avoiding Negligence Per Se Claims For Non-Compliance With Social Distancing Orders In The U.S.
The measures implemented by state and local governments in response to the spread of COVID-19 vary widely, from suggested guidelines to mandatory shelter-in-place orders. The more extreme measures generally require the closure of non-essential businesses and a reduction in operations for essential businesses. For example, municipalities ranging from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. and states like Michigan and Wisconsin, among others, have all adopted substantially similar orders that largely close non-essential businesses (except, in some cases, for “minimum basic operations”) and require essential businesses or infrastructure to comply with various social distancing requirements “to the greatest extent feasible” or “possible.” Many of these orders are enforceable through the threat of criminal penalties, including fines and incarceration. Among other things, the social distancing provisions generally include maintaining at least six feet of distance between employees and members of the public, including when customers are standing in line. Some orders, such as Wisconsin’s order, mandate that essential businesses “shall, to the greatest extent possible,” avoid in-person meetings through virtual conferences and telecommuting. Others require compliance with guidelines issued by federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, or limit the number of employees that can work in the same building at a given time. For instance, Georgia’s statewide order prohibits any gathering of more than ten people in a single location if they are not separated by at least six feet.