1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Ashley (Lee) McMahon

Ashley (Lee) McMahon

Counsel | She/Her/Hers
Counsel | She/Her/Hers
YW1jbWFob25AY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

As an experienced antitrust attorney with a primary focus on defending high-stakes Sherman Act, Section 1 conspiracy allegations, Ashley (“Lee”) McMahon leverages her specialized expertise to navigate complex litigation and government investigations. Her experience spans class action litigations and private party lawsuits, particularly in “no-poach” cases, and follows a proactive approach to emerging regulatory challenges. Clients, ranging from healthcare systems to global manufacturing giants, benefit from Lee’s strategic insight and collaborative solutions.

Lee has represented clients in antitrust matters related to no-poach and market allocation, price-fixing, bid rigging, and exclusive dealing, including cartel investigations thereof. She has represented clients before the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and state attorneys general, as well as before international competition agencies such as the European Commission and South African Competition Commission. Lee also assists clients with premerger notification, review, and analysis under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act.

Lee’s pro bono practice focuses on work with the Innocence Project on case reviews, and on immigration asylum cases, where she has won asylum for multiple clients. In law school, Lee won release from reincarceration for multiple clients before the U.S. Parole Commission as a law clerk for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. She has interned for three public defender’s offices, in Washington; Charlottesville, Virginia; and New Orleans.

While in law school, Lee served as editor-in-chief of the Virginia Journal of Criminal Law and was involved with the Innocence Project Clinic and Public Interest Law Association. She credits her solid footing in the legal world to her years as a paralegal at a revered civil rights and criminal defense boutique firm in Boston.

Career & Education

    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2016
    • Connecticut College, B.A., magna cum laude, 2009
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2016
    • Connecticut College, B.A., magna cum laude, 2009

    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association
      • Antitrust Section
    • Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia
    • Women’s Antitrust Forum
    • National Association of Women Lawyers

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association
      • Antitrust Section
    • Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia
    • Women’s Antitrust Forum
    • National Association of Women Lawyers

Ashley (Lee)'s Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26

DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision

Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Represented an aerospace and defense company in a no-poach class action litigation alleging an agreement not to hire suppliers’ aerospace engineers and other skilled workers, which stemmed from a grand jury indictment.
  • Represented a Naval shipbuilder in a no-poach class action litigation alleging a decades-long, industry-wide agreement not to poach competitor naval engineering employees.
  • Represented a major regional health care provider in a no-poach class action litigation alleging an agreement not to solicit competitors’ healthcare workers.
  • Represented client in a grand jury investigation alleging no-poach agreements.
  • Represented a major health insurance payor accused of price-fixing through the use of algorithmic pricing software.
  • Represented a toy manufacturing company accused of group boycott by withdrawing advertising from a social media platform.
  • Represented a Japanese automotive parts manufacturer in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, the multi-district litigation stemming from “the largest criminal antitrust investigation in U.S. history” into price-fixing cartel allegations.
  • Represented a health care IT solutions company in an FTC investigation and follow-on class action litigation alleging exclusive dealing arrangements related to e-prescriptions.
  • Represented a mission critical communications enterprise as a third party in an FTC investigation in the law enforcement body-worn camera industry.
  • Represented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in multi-district litigation alleging price-fixing of generic drugs.
  • Represented a multinational telecommunications company in the premerger filing and Second Request investigation of a billion-dollar sale of an anime streaming business.
  • Represented a private equity client in its acquisition of a billion-dollar aerospace & defense products and medical products manufacturer.

Ashley (Lee)'s Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26

DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision

Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26

DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision

Publication | 07.30.26

No-Poach Agreements and Employee Restrictions — How Government Contractors Can Spot and Mitigate Antitrust Risk

Speaking Engagement | 05.31.26

“No-Poach, No-Pay? Cracking Down on Labor Markets,” NERA’s Antitrust and Competition Leaders Summit, Tarrytown, NY

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.20.26

HSR Form Rollback: What Dealmakers Need to Know Now

View All Insights

Practices

Ashley (Lee)'s Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26

DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision

Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert....

View All Insights