Helena Alvarez

Associate | She/Her/Hers

Overview

Helena Alvarez helps clients meet their legal and business objectives by counseling them on Antitrust & Competition and Mass Tort, Product & Consumer Litigation matters.

Helena supports clients on a wide variety of antitrust and competition issues. Her antitrust and competition representative experience includes civil litigation, investigations, and transactions.

Within her torts practice, Helena assists clients in the pharmaceutical, consumer product, and transportation industries with their regulatory and litigation needs.

Helena maintains an active pro bono practice, primarily handling asylum matters.

Helena received her J.D., cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law. In law school, she was a student attorney in the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic and on the executive board of the American University Business Law Review. She earned her B.S.F.S. from Georgetown University.

Born and raised in El Salvador, Helena is a native Spanish speaker.

Career & Education

    • American University Washington College of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2023
    • Georgetown University, B.S., Foreign Service, 2016
    • American University Washington College of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2023
    • Georgetown University, B.S., Foreign Service, 2016
    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia
    • Member, ABA Antitrust Law Section, 2024 – Present
    • Member, ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, 2024 – Present
    • Member, ABA Young Lawyers Division, 2024 – Present
    • Board Member and Fundraising Chair, Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), 2022 – Present
    • Member, ABA Antitrust Law Section, 2024 – Present
    • Member, ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, 2024 – Present
    • Member, ABA Young Lawyers Division, 2024 – Present
    • Board Member and Fundraising Chair, Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), 2022 – Present
    • English
    • Spanish (native)
    • French
    • English
    • Spanish (native)
    • French

Helena's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.13.26

New York-Presbyterian Hospital Ruling Signals Widening Antitrust Exposure for Hospital Contracting Practices

On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York....

Helena's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.13.26

New York-Presbyterian Hospital Ruling Signals Widening Antitrust Exposure for Hospital Contracting Practices

On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York....