David Schultz is a trial lawyer and partner in Maslon's Litigation Group. He focuses his practice on high stakes litigation in the areas of product liability, healthcare, commercial disputes, civil and criminal fraud, and intellectual property. David has tried cases to verdict in state and federal courts throughout the country. He is board certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association. David has taught trial advocacy at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) and the Network of Trial Law Firms. David has developed an active appellate practice as well, having argued more than 50 cases before several federal circuits as well as the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. David is particularly adept in the analysis and elucidation of complex technical issues, a skill which he leverages for clients across all areas of his practice.

David's work on product liability cases is extensive, dating back to his time with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office where he defended the state in design and construction of highways, catastrophic aviation and railroad crashes, and toxic torts. In private practice, he has successfully represented a broad range of product manufacturers, from chemical companies that have been sued for toxic exposures to leading manufacturers of sophisticated medical devices to manufacturers of agricultural seeds.

In addition, David regularly represents physicians, clinics, hospitals and other providers in a wide range of matters including regulatory investigations and enforcement, licensing investigations and contested cases, professional liability litigation, credentialing and medical staffing, and civil and criminal investigations under the Federal False Claims Act and other fraud statutes. David also represents health maintenance organizations, insurers and third party payors in state and federal regulatory enforcement and investigative matters.

David's niche practice conducting investigations for corporations and public institutions has delved into matters involving state and federal regulatory compliance, Medicare/Medicaid billing practices and fraud (including unbundling, upcoding, certification, cost reporting, medical necessity, and duplicate payments), FDA civil and criminal regulatory violations, NIH grants, academic fraud, financial fraud, and sexual misconduct. His work in this area is further distinguished by time served in the Law Enforcement Section of the Minnesota Attorney General's Office as a white collar crime prosecutor and in the Solicitor General's Section as a civil trial attorney prior to his career in private practice. Today, David's white collar criminal defense practice includes representing individuals and corporations in a variety of state and federal prosecutions.

David has represented clients in commercial and intellectual property litigation as well, including contractual disputes, trademark and patent infringement, and theft of trade secrets. Throughout his career, he has worked across a broad range of matters, all of which have enriched his experience and enabled him to provide an exceptional level of service in bet-the-company matters.

Selected Experience

Representative Engagements

  • Various Medical Device Product Liability Cases. David is currently lead trial counsel on over 25 individual medical device product liability cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. These cases involve pain pumps, insulin pumps, spinal fusion devices, and cardiac rhythm disease management devices, among others. In this role, David has argued countless motions on a range of topics, including federal preemption, exclusion of expert testimony, and causation.
  • David is lead Minnesota counsel in an MDL and related state court cases involving product liability claims against a manufacturer of corn seed.
  • Select Comfort et al. v. John Baxter et al. David is lead trial counsel in this federal false advertising and trademark infringement matter relating to air adjustable sleep support systems (i.e., "number beds").
  • Elkharwily v. Mayo Clinic et al. David recently won summary judgment in this complex whistleblower claim arising under the Federal False claims Act, Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
  • Welchlin v. Fairmont Medical Center (Blue Earth County Dist. Ct. 2011). David successfully obtained, on behalf of the hospital, summary judgment from the district court on plaintiff's claims for improper restrictions of his practice credentials, which was affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
  • O'Rourke v. Buckmaster (Freeborn County Dist. Ct. 2007). David successfully defended Mayo Clinic in a two-week jury trial involving claims of medical negligence.
  • Texas v. Armstrong (McAllen, Texas 2014). David led a team of Maslon lawyers in a trial regarding his client's wrongful conviction for which he was sentenced to death.
  • Medical Device Recall Litigation. Led a team of Maslon lawyers in defending claims and litigation brought against a world-leading medical device company arising out of the voluntary recall of one of its signature products (2009-present).
  • BondPro Corporation v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. (W.D. Wis. 2005). Led a team of lawyers in a lengthy federal court jury trial representing defendant in a misappropriation of trade secret action involving power generation technology. David obtained a judgment on behalf of his client, which was affirmed on appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of America et al. (D. Minn. 2009). Led a team of Maslon lawyers in defense of a $10 million copyright infringement and breach of contract action that threatened the iconic branding images of Famous Dave's restaurants. The District Court dismissed the case on summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal.
  • Hormel Foods Corp. v. Cereol, et al. (D. Minn. 2006). Represented an international olive oil manufacturer in a complex breach of contract and trademark infringement action brought by a competitor.
  • Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Shurtape International ManufacturerTechnologies, Inc., et al. (D. Minn. 2000). Represented an international manufacturer of construction products in a trademark and trade dress infringement action arising out of defendant's use of color on masking tape products.
  • In re Alexandria Accident Cases (Minn. 1995). When a Minnesota Dept. of Transportation snowplow was struck by a tour bus during a blizzard causing a multi-vehicle accident, David was called upon to defend the State of Minnesota in the numerous resulting lawsuits. David devised and executed a creative interpleader strategy resulting in summary judgment for his clients and dismissal of all claims against the State.
  • University of Minnesota Investigation (1997). When an investigation into academic fraud in the University of Minnesota men's basketball program revealed potential interference by University officials in unrelated police investigations of sexual misconduct by student athletes, David was tapped to lead that investigation. The investigation resulted in policy changes at the University regarding reports of student sexual misconduct.
  • PBM v. Health Plan (AAA Arbitration; Minn. 2013). Represented large health plan in a $50 million private arbitration brought by its former pharmacy benefits manager. David successfully asserted counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty resulting in a significant client victory.
  • Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com (D. Minn. 2006). Represented defendant in a trademark infringement action raising cutting-edge legal issues relating to use of paid advertisement search terms on the internet.
  • Digi International, Inc. v. Lantronix, Inc. / Lantronix, Inc. v. Digi International, Inc. (E.D. Texas; D. Minn.; C.D. Cal. 2005). Represented computer hardware and software networking manufacturer in four inter-connected patent infringement matters venued in the Eastern District of Texas, Central District of California, and District of Minnesota. Client was a plaintiff in some cases and defendant in others. The case settled after an extensive and favorable Markman hearing for David's client.

Representative Appeals

  • O'Rourke v. Buckmaster, 755 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). In this case of first impression, David successfully defended a client in a two-week jury trial involving claims of negligence. During the discovery phase of the case, David convinced the court of appeals to reverse the trial court's failure to exclude evidence of the defendant doctor's disciplinary settlement with the Board of Medical Practice.
  • BondPro v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 463 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 2006). Successful appeal from the district court's entry of order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; affirmed.
  • United States, ex. Rel., Kinny v. Stoltz, et al., 327 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2003) cert. den. In this False Claims Act, the 8th Circuit upheld the lower court's finding that relator was not an original source of the allegations because he had no direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoings.
  • Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. 1993). In Dziubak, a case of first impression in Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that public defenders are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for legal malpractice. This decision was not only one of first impression, it was against the trend in a majority of states at that time.
  • Color-Ad Packaging, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 428 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1998). In Color-Ad Packaging, a statutory interpretation decision, the Supreme Court divided 4-3, holding that the taxpayer was entitled to an incentive-based property tax rebate.
  • Estate of Benson by Benson v. Minnesota Bd. of Medical Practice, 526 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). In Benson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the claim by an individual for damages resulting from the alleged violation of his data practices rights is a personal injury claim which terminates upon the death of the individual.
  • In Re: Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed an award of summary judgment to the State in this mass tort action in which seven people were killed and over 70 were injured. The State prevailed on summary judgment after having instituted an interpleader and successfully bifurcated liability and damages.
  • McEwen v. Burlington Northern R. Co., Inc., 494 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). The court construed a state statute to preempt any and all claims of negligent design against the State of Minnesota arising out of railroad crossing accidents. Prior to this decision, despite the existence of that statute, the State had been subject to suit for claims of inadequate grade crossing warning devices.

Professional Activities

American Bar Association: Death Penalty Representation Project, Steering Committee
Federal Bar Association: Board Member
Minnesota State Bar Association
Hennepin County Bar Association
Ramsey County Bar Association
Product Liability Advisory Council
Council on Crime and Justice: Board Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association
International Trademark Associates
National Association of College and University Attorneys
Minnesota Supreme Court: Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure
Innocence Project of Minnesota: Board of Directors, Secretary 2004-2006, Chair 2007
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce

Pro Bono Activities

Assisting the family of Minnesota priest John Kaiser in the investigation of his death in Kenya, Africa (2006).
Represented family of 1981 murder victim in civil wrongful death action and won $6 million judgment in 2012.
Represented Texas death-row inmate in securing his right to forensic testing of evidence which exonerated him of the murder.
Led a team of lawyers who drafted the criminal bench book for the judiciary in Kosovo, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (2000).


Child Advocacy Award, Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013

Notable Practitioner in Minnesota for Litigation, Chambers USA, 2013-2015

Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America®, 2012-2016

North Star Lawyer, Minnesota State Bar Association, 2012-2014 (North Star Lawyer is a designation that recognizes members who provide 50 hours or more of pro bono legal services in a calendar year.)

Recognized on Minnesota Super Lawyers® list, 1999-2015 (Minnesota Super Lawyers® is a designation given to only 5 percent of Minnesota attorneys each year, based on a selection process that includes the recommendation of peers in the legal profession.)

AV Preeminent, Martindale-Hubbell® (AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell® certification procedures, standards and policies.)

p 612.672.8399   f 612.642.8399
3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Bar Admissions
Minnesota, 1985
Wisconsin, 1999
U.S. District Court
  • Minnesota, 1985
  • Colorado, 2012
  • S.D. Indiana, 2011
  • W.D. Wisconsin, 2004
U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Fifth Circuit, 2014
  • Seventh Circuit, 2005
  • Eighth Circuit, 1989
  • Federal Circuit, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court, 2002
Stanford Law School
J.D., 1985
Carleton College
B.A., magna cum laude, distinction, 1981
Honors: Phi Beta Kappa
Major: Political Science
Additional Qualifications

Board Certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy

Board Certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association

AAA Panel Member appointed to the American Arbitration Association Complex Commercial Arbitrator Panel. Has served as lead arbitrator in several matters.



Thank you for your interest in contacting us by email.

Please do not submit any confidential information to Maslon via email on this website. By communicating with us we are not establishing an attorney-client relationship, and information you submit will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege and cannot be treated as confidential. A client relationship will not be formed until we have entered into a formal agreement. You should also be aware that we may currently represent parties whose interests may be adverse to yours, and we reserve the right to continue to represent them notwithstanding any communication we receive from you.

If you would like to discuss possible representation, please call one of our attorneys directly or use our general line (p 612.672.8200). We can then fully discuss our intake procedures and, if appropriate, introduce you to an attorney suited to assist with your matter. Alternatively, you may send us an email containing a general inquiry subject to these terms.

If you accept the terms of this notice and would like to send an email, click on the "Accept" button below. Otherwise, please click "Decline."