Photo of Alyssa Goehring

Alyssa Goehring

Alyssa discovered a love of argument and logic as a high school student in a government course—suggesting to her that she needed a career where she could spend her days advocating and persuading others of a client’s position. Litigation was a natural fit, and she began her career with two years on the plaintiff side of personal injury, civil rights, and commercial cases before shifting to product liability defense.

Today, Alyssa primarily focuses her practice on toxic tort matters, with occasional work in premises liability and employment discrimination. She thrives on the complexity of chemical exposure cases and work with expert witnesses, and she is especially experienced with mold exposure allegations. Alyssa has represented military housing providers in mold cases, dealing with the added complexity of a government contract and the potential application of state laws on federal land.

Thanks to her background as plaintiffs’ counsel, Alyssa has an excellent sense for the opposition’s strategy. She combines her instinct for opposing counsel’s next moves with a sharp focus on how every piece of evidence and argument will play in a courtroom: Alyssa is known for always being ready for trial and for considering a potential jury’s response every step of the way, even when a case is likely to settle. While most cases will never be tried to verdict, it’s an approach that often leads to a far more favorable settlement.

In addition to her trial preparation, Alyssa is also known for her quick responses and her thorough research.

On February 7, 2025, Judge Walker, sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled that the Plaintiff (a subsidiary of a parent company engaged in nationwide talcum powder litigation) (“Plaintiff”) had standing to sue expert pathologists who testify for plaintiffs in personal injury litigation (“expert pathologists”) for injurious falsehood/product disparagement based on allegedly false statements in a scientific article purportedly linking cosmetic talc to mesothelioma.1 Although the experts did not name Plaintiff, or specific products in their scientific article, Judge Walker held that the subsidiary plausibly alleged that their economic injuries were traceable to the expert pathologists’ allegedly false statements, which contributed to a decline in consumer demand for baby powder products.