DLA Piper Partner Accused of Rape, DLA Piper Partner Faces $10.6M Lawsuit After Former Associate Alleges Rape
A former DLA Piper associate filed a lawsuit December 16, 2025, accusing former intellectual property partner Brian Biggs of raping her at the firm’s Delaware office in December 2022 and later breaking into her Boston home and strangling her in July 2024. The lawsuit seeks at least $10.6 million in damages and alleges DLA Piper failed to protect the associate despite Biggs’s reputation for heavy drinking and inappropriate conduct toward younger female attorneys being “well-known across the firm.”
DLA Piper states it investigated a “romantic relationship” between Biggs and the associate in January 2025, after which Biggs “immediately withdrew” from the firm. The associate resigned December 12, 2025. This marks the second major sexual assault scandal at DLA Piper in six years.
What Are the Specific Assault Allegations Against Brian Biggs?
The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, details two separate incidents of alleged assault and harassment spanning nearly two years.
December 12, 2022: Alleged Rape at DLA Piper’s Delaware Office
After a work dinner in Wilmington, Delaware, Biggs texted the associate to return to the firm’s office. She found him sitting on the floor near a printer bay, allegedly intoxicated.
The lawsuit alleges Biggs pulled her to the ground, confessed his love, attempted to kiss and grope her, then dragged her down the hallway into a conference room where he raped her. The associate said she “froze, became numb, and went into survival mode”.
July 2024: Alleged Break-In and Strangulation
Biggs began screaming at the associate outside a Boston bar, then followed her home, broke into her house and tried to strangle her, relenting only when she began to pass out.
Biggs later sent an email apologizing for breaking into her house.
Who Is Brian Biggs and What Was His Role at DLA Piper?
Brian Biggs was an intellectual property partner based in DLA Piper’s Wilmington, Delaware office. He specialized in patent litigation and worked on high-profile technology cases.
The lawsuit alleges Biggs had a reputation for heavy drinking and inappropriate workplace conduct directed at younger female attorneys, which was well-known across the firm.
Biggs took an early interest in the associate after meeting her at a 2022 firm meeting in Orlando, Florida, and became her mentor after pressing the Boston office’s managing partner for details about the associate’s life, including a recent divorce and miscarriage.
Biggs left DLA Piper in early 2025 and later joined Ashby & Geddes, a Delaware law firm. When contacted by Bloomberg Law, Biggs hung up.
Timeline: When and Where Did the Alleged Assaults Occur?
June 2022: Biggs meets the associate at a company conference in Florida
December 12, 2022: Alleged rape at DLA Piper’s Wilmington, Delaware office following work dinner
July 2024: Alleged break-in and strangulation at the associate’s Boston-area home
January 2025: DLA Piper notified of “romantic relationship” between Biggs and the associate
January 2025: Biggs withdraws from DLA Piper following firm investigation
December 12, 2025: Associate resigns from DLA Piper
December 16, 2025: Lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Superior Court
What Legal Claims Have Been Filed?
The case is Doe v. DLA Piper LLP (US), Mass. Super. Ct., No. 2584CV03465, complaint filed 12/15/25.
Claims Against DLA Piper:
- Hostile work environment
- Quid pro quo sexual harassment
- Retaliation
Claims Against Brian Biggs:
- Assault and battery
The associate seeks at least $10.6 million in damages for physical trauma, PTSD, and other psychological harm.
The associate is represented by Pollard PLLC and Shah Litigation PLLC.
How Has DLA Piper Responded to the Allegations?
DLA Piper issued a statement emphasizing its investigation timeline and disputing the rape allegations.
“The firm was notified in January 2025 of a romantic relationship between a partner and an associate, which we investigated promptly,” the DLA Piper spokesperson said. “The associate made no allegations of rape to the firm. Following the firm’s review, the partner immediately withdrew from the firm; the associate remained employed at the firm until she resigned on December 12.”
The firm added: “We will address this lawsuit through the appropriate channels.”
DLA Piper’s response characterizes the relationship as “romantic” rather than assaultive, and notes the associate never reported rape during the internal investigation.
Understanding the Legal Claims: Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo
Hostile Work Environment
A hostile work environment occurs when unwelcome conduct based on sex is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, offensive, or abusive workplace. The conduct must be:
- Unwelcome and based on a protected characteristic (sex, race, religion, etc.)
- Severe or pervasive enough to alter employment conditions
- Offensive to both the victim and a reasonable person
- Attributable to the employer through actual or constructive knowledge
Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
Quid pro quo (Latin for “this for that”) harassment occurs when a supervisor or authority figure demands sexual favors in exchange for job benefits or threatens adverse employment action if demands are refused.
Key elements include:
- Perpetrator has power over victim’s employment
- Explicit or implicit demand for sexual favors
- Promise of job benefit or threat of adverse action
- Connection between the sexual demand and employment decision
Unlike hostile work environment claims, quid pro quo harassment can be established with a single incident. Employers are automatically liable when supervisors engage in quid pro quo harassment that results in tangible employment actions.
What Workplace Protections Exist for Assault Victims in Law Firms?
Federal Protections Under Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault. Employers with 15 or more employees must:
- Maintain workplaces free from sexual harassment
- Investigate complaints promptly and thoroughly
- Take corrective action to stop harassment
- Protect complainants from retaliation
State Law Protections
Massachusetts law provides additional protections:
- Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act prohibits sexual harassment
- State law allows victims to sue for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress
- No cap on damages for intentional torts
- Criminal prosecution possible for assault and breaking and entering
Employer Liability Standards
Employers can be held liable for supervisor harassment when:
- The harassment results in tangible employment action (firing, demotion, lost promotion)
- The employer knew or should have known about harassment and failed to act
- The employer failed to maintain adequate anti-harassment policies
- The employer retaliated against the complainant
What Protections Exist for Accusers?
Anti-Retaliation Provisions
Federal and state employment laws prohibit retaliation against employees who:
- Report sexual harassment or assault
- Participate in investigations
- File EEOC charges or lawsuits
- Oppose unlawful discrimination
Retaliation can include termination, demotion, reduced hours, poor performance reviews, hostile treatment, or forced resignation.
Confidentiality Limits
Massachusetts and other states have restricted forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases:
- Victims cannot be required to keep settlements confidential
- Mandatory arbitration agreements may be unenforceable for harassment claims
- Victims have the right to discuss their experiences publicly
EEOC Complaint Process
Victims can file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the last discriminatory act. The EEOC investigates and may:
- Facilitate settlement
- Issue a “right to sue” letter
- File suit on behalf of the victim
Legal Consequences for the Accused Partner
Civil Liability
Biggs faces personal liability for assault and battery claims. Potential consequences include:
- Compensatory damages for physical and emotional injuries
- Punitive damages if conduct was willful or malicious
- Attorneys’ fees and costs
- Judgments that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy
Criminal Charges
The alleged conduct could support criminal charges including:
- Rape or sexual assault
- Breaking and entering
- Assault and battery
- Strangulation (a specific crime in Massachusetts)
No criminal charges have been publicly filed as of December 16, 2025.
Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings
State bars can discipline attorneys for:
- Criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice
- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
- Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice
Potential disciplinary sanctions range from private admonishment to disbarment.
Potential Liability for DLA Piper
Direct Employer Liability
DLA Piper faces liability if:
- The firm knew or should have known about Biggs’s conduct
- The firm failed to investigate or take corrective action
- The firm retaliated against the associate for complaining
- The firm’s policies or training were inadequate
Vicarious Liability for Supervisor Conduct
Employers are automatically liable for supervisors’ harassment when tangible employment actions result. DLA Piper may argue:
- Biggs was not the associate’s direct supervisor
- No tangible employment action occurred
- The firm took prompt corrective action
Damages Exposure
DLA Piper could face:
- Compensatory damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and medical expenses
- Punitive damages if conduct was malicious or reckless
- Attorneys’ fees and costs
- Reputational damage affecting recruiting and client relationships
Factors Affecting Liability
The lawsuit’s success against DLA Piper depends on:
- Whether the firm had actual or constructive knowledge of Biggs’s misconduct
- The adequacy of the firm’s investigation
- Whether the firm took effective remedial action
- Evidence of retaliation
- Whether Biggs’s reputation was truly “well-known across the firm” as alleged
The Associate’s Attorney on “Toxic Workplace Cultures”
Jonathan Pollard, the associate’s attorney, stated: “Sexual harassment and assault are ‘an open secret’ within the legal profession. Many large law firms have deeply toxic workplace cultures. When the bad actor is a powerful partner, there is often no meaningful accountability. Heavy drinking and unchecked power frequently factor into these cases.”
Pollard’s statement echoes broader concerns about power dynamics in BigLaw, where equity partners earning millions annually hold significant institutional power while associates navigate hierarchical structures with limited recourse.
How This Case Compares to DLA Piper’s 2019 Sexual Assault Scandal
This lawsuit marks the second major sexual assault scandal at DLA Piper in six years. Bloomberg Law noted: “The suit comes some six years after DLA Piper was accused of shielding a rainmaker from a colleague’s accusations of sexual assault.”
The Louis Lehot Case (2019)
In October 2019, DLA Piper partner Vanina Guerrero publicly accused rainmaker Louis Lehot of sexually assaulting her four times on business trips after recruiting her to the firm in September 2018.
Key similarities to the current case:
- Both involved high-ranking partners allegedly assaulting colleagues they mentored
- Both associates initially reported concerns internally
- Both cases involved the firm’s characterization of relationships as consensual
- Both raised questions about forced arbitration and confidentiality
What happened in the Lehot case:
- Lehot left DLA Piper in October 2019 despite the firm stating allegations were “not substantiated”
- DLA Piper placed Guerrero on administrative leave, citing “serious issues” with her conduct discovered during the investigation
- The firm used Gibson Dunn attorneys to file a 122-page EEOC response alleging Guerrero “orchestrated” the relationship
- Multiple women came forward with additional allegations against Lehot
- Guerrero fought to be released from mandatory arbitration to litigate publicly
The Lehot case generated significant criticism of DLA Piper’s response, including accusations the firm retaliated against Guerrero and attempted to discredit her through selective disclosure of emails.
Pattern Recognition: BigLaw’s Ongoing Accountability Problem
The current lawsuit reflects persistent challenges in addressing misconduct when alleged perpetrators hold significant institutional power.
Common factors in BigLaw misconduct cases:
- Partners earning millions in profits create institutional reluctance to act
- Associates fear career retaliation for reporting powerful partners
- Firms characterize assaults as “consensual relationships”
- Mandatory arbitration provisions silence victims
- Internal investigations may lack independence
- Firms prioritize reputation management over victim protection
Recent developments in legal industry accountability:
- Growing restrictions on forced arbitration in harassment cases
- Increased media scrutiny of BigLaw workplace culture
- Law student activism demanding policy changes
- Professional associations strengthening ethics standards
- Clients demanding information about firms’ harassment records
What Happens Next: Timeline and Potential Outcomes
Immediate Next Steps
DLA Piper must file an answer to the complaint within the time specified by Massachusetts Superior Court rules, typically 20 days.
Both parties will begin discovery, exchanging documents and taking depositions. Key evidence will include:
- DLA Piper’s investigation records from January 2025
- Email communications between Biggs and the associate
- Biggs’s email apologizing for the break-in
- Witness testimony about Biggs’s reputation
- The associate’s medical records documenting PTSD
- Performance reviews and compensation records
Potential Outcomes
Settlement: Given the reputational stakes and detailed allegations, DLA Piper may seek to settle confidentially. However, modern restrictions limit confidentiality provisions in harassment cases.
Motion to Dismiss: DLA Piper may argue certain claims fail as a matter of law, though the detailed allegations and severity of conduct make dismissal unlikely.
Trial: If no settlement is reached, a jury would determine liability and damages. Massachusetts juries can award substantial compensatory and punitive damages.
Criminal Investigation: Massachusetts authorities could investigate the alleged rape, break-in, and strangulation. The associate’s attorney could refer the matter to prosecutors.
Attorney Discipline: State bar authorities in Delaware, Massachusetts, or other jurisdictions where Biggs is licensed could investigate.
What This Means for DLA Piper’s Reputation and Policies
DLA Piper is among the world’s largest law firms, with more than $4.2 billion in gross revenue last year and equity partners earning nearly $3.5 million in average profits.
Reputational Implications
- Repeated sexual assault scandals may deter prospective associates
- Clients increasingly scrutinize law firm workplace cultures
- Lateral partner candidates may question the firm’s culture
- Law school recruiting could be affected
Policy Questions Raised
The lawsuit highlights critical questions about DLA Piper’s policies:
- Why did the January 2025 investigation characterize the relationship as “romantic” when the associate now alleges rape?
- What steps did the firm take when notified of a partner-associate relationship?
- Were there prior complaints about Biggs that went unaddressed?
- What support did the firm provide the associate after Biggs’s departure?
- Has the firm revised policies following its 2019 Lehot scandal?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the former DLA Piper associate alleging?
The associate, identified as Jane Doe, alleges Brian Biggs raped her at the firm’s Delaware office in December 2022 and broke into her Boston home and strangled her in July 2024. She claims Biggs had a reputation for heavy drinking and inappropriate conduct toward young female attorneys that was well-known across the firm.
Who is Brian Biggs?
Biggs was an intellectual property partner in DLA Piper’s Wilmington, Delaware office specializing in patent litigation. He left the firm in early 2025 after an internal investigation and now works at Ashby & Geddes in Delaware.
What claims has the associate filed?
She filed claims for hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation against DLA Piper, plus assault and battery claims against Biggs. She seeks at least $10.6 million in damages.
How did DLA Piper respond?
The firm states it investigated a “romantic relationship” between Biggs and the associate in January 2025, after which Biggs withdrew from the firm. DLA Piper says the associate never alleged rape during the internal investigation and that it will “address this lawsuit through the appropriate channels.”
Why didn’t the associate report rape to the firm?
The lawsuit alleges the associate experienced PTSD symptoms and was in “survival mode” following the assault. Many sexual assault victims delay reporting due to trauma, fear of retaliation, or belief they won’t be believed—particularly when the alleged perpetrator holds institutional power.
What is quid pro quo sexual harassment?
Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor or authority figure demands sexual favors in exchange for job benefits or threatens adverse employment action if demands are refused. Unlike hostile work environment claims, a single incident can constitute quid pro quo harassment.
Has DLA Piper faced similar allegations before?
Yes. In 2019, partner Vanina Guerrero publicly accused rainmaker Louis Lehot of sexually assaulting her four times after he recruited her to the firm. Lehot left DLA Piper, and the firm faced criticism for its response, including placing Guerrero on administrative leave and filing a 122-page EEOC response characterizing their relationship as consensual.
Could criminal charges be filed?
Yes. The alleged conduct could support criminal charges including rape, breaking and entering, assault and battery, and strangulation. No criminal charges have been publicly announced as of December 16, 2025.
What protections exist for workplace assault victims?
Federal Title VII and state employment laws prohibit sexual harassment and retaliation. Victims can file EEOC charges, sue in civil court, and may pursue criminal charges. Many states now restrict forced arbitration and confidentiality agreements in harassment cases.
What happens next in the case?
DLA Piper must file a legal response to the lawsuit. Both parties will exchange documents and take depositions during discovery. The case could result in settlement, trial, or dismissal. Potential criminal investigation and attorney disciplinary proceedings may also occur.
This article is based on court filings, firm statements, and credible legal reporting. The allegations have not been proven in court, and all parties are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah