Abram Shanedling is an associate in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office and a member of the firm’s Telecom Team.
Areas of Practice
Abram focuses his practice on business litigation and technical regulatory compliance matters. He represents clients before federal and state trial and appellate courts across the country as well as federal and state administrative agencies in complex and high stakes matters ranging from commercial disputes and products liability litigation to controversies involving statutory, constitutional, communications, environmental, privacy, and administrative law issues.
Abram regularly represents cable operators and other broadband providers in a wide range of regulatory, litigation, and transactional matters. These include disputes related to local franchising, rights-of-way, PEG programming, pole attachments and infrastructure deployment and a host of other related issues. He regularly represents providers on these issues in state and federal courts and participates in rulemakings and adjudications before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state public service commissions.
In addition to his practice, Abram is actively involved in the firm, currently serving on Sheppard Mullin’s Pro Bono Committee, Recruiting Committee, and Associates’ Forum. Abram is dedicated to pro bono representation and public interest litigation in Washington, D.C. and across the country. Abram has represented several clients in immigration and asylum matters, successfully aided a federal inmate in securing compassionate release, and is currently representing a not-for-profit organization in environmental litigation arising under the Clean Water Act concerning the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska.
Abram previously served as a law clerk for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary and as a legal intern in the Office of the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Aside from his practice, he is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches a course on Legal Research, Analysis and Writing.
- Representing national cable operator in litigation in Texas federal and state court regarding franchise fees, access to rights-of-way, and pole attachments.
- Obtained dismissal of breach contract and various tort claims against technology services client in North Carolina federal court
- Represented federal inmate suffering severe sickle cell anemia in obtaining early compassionate release under federal First Step Act
Successfully represented national cable operator at Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Southern District of Indiana in case affirming that Section 621 of the federal Cable Act authorizes cable operators’ compatible use of easements dedicated to utility purposes. See West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. et al, No. 4:16-cv-00145RLYTAB, 2018 WL 321686 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2018), appeal dismissed, 920 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019), and aff'd sub nom. No. 19-2442, 2020 WL 995774 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020)
- Pursued and conducted all phases of litigation in multiple state and federal actions across the country
- Represents clients from across the country and in different industries in commercial litigation matters
- Advises clients on compliance with telecommunications regulations
- Represents a broad coalition of cable providers in pole attachment rulemaking proceedings before the Maine Public Utilities Commissions
- Represented national cable operator in obtaining unanimous victory before the Texas Supreme Court regarding uniform pole attachment rate and anti-discrimination requirements in the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act. Time Warner Cable Texas LLC v. CPS Energy, No. 17-0840, --- S.W.3d ---, 2019 WL 2147257 (Tex. May 17, 2019)
Secured dismissal of all claims brought against government defense/robotics contractor for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relationships, civil conspiracy and unfair competition. Robo-Team NA, Inc. v. Endeavor Robotics, 313 F. Supp. 3d 19 (D.D.C. 2018)
Successfully represented the Louisiana Cable & Telecommunications Association in negotiating settlement of claims brought by electric utility company before the Louisiana Public Service Commission regarding pole attachment rental rates. See In re: Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Proper Formula for the Pole Attachment Rental Rate Under Louisiana Public Service Commission Order Dated September 4, 2014, Docket No. U-34688 (La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n filed 2017)
Represented national cable operator in defeating a request for a temporary restraining order and a motion to remand, and securing voluntary dismissal of breach of contract action brought by landowner in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Smalley v. Charter Commc’ns Holding Co., LLC, 2017 WL 7520467 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2017); 2017 WL 2335518 (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2017)
- Ones to Watch — Litigation, Best Lawyers, 2021
- Recommended Attorney - Media, Technology and Telecoms, Legal 500, 2019-2020
- Burton Distinguished Legal Writing Award, 2015
- Washington, D.C. Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2020-2021
- Morning Consult, 06.12.2017
- “Removing Weapons of Mass Destruction From the World’s Most Volatile Region: How to Achieve a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East,” 46 Georgetown Journal of International Law 315, 2014
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog Posts
- "Second Circuit Affirms “Snap” Removal Practice," March 29, 2019
FCC Law Blog Posts
- Law360, 04.10.2020
- Law360, 04.07.2020
- 7th Circ. Lets Charter Run Fiber Over Litigant’s LandLaw360, 03.03.2020
- Law360, 02.03.2020
- Law360, 12.11.2019
- Grand View Outdoors, 10.14.2019
- Law.com, 10.10.2019
- Law360, 10.09.2019
- Bloomberg Environment, 10.09.2019
- Law360, 05.17.2019
- Law360, 04.05.2019
- Law360, 01.24.2019
- Member, American Bar Association
- Member, Federal Communications Bar Association
- Member, Bar Association of the District of Columbia
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, cum laude, Managing Editor, Georgetown Journal of International Law
B.A., University of Wisconsin, 2009, with honors
- District of Columbia
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland