Zachary Eastburn

Legal strategist who protects and advances the route-to-market for clients’ products

Zachary Eastburn is a commercial litigator who assists large and small businesses in expanding, protecting and rationalizing route-to-market strategies for products through franchises, dealerships and distribution channels. His business-forward advice is designed to achieve both legal and commercial objectives, tailored to meet the client’s industry-specific needs.

In addition to his work with corporate clients, Zach serves as national chair of the Quarles LGBTQ+ business resource group. He also is committed to the firm's pro bono efforts, most notably securing an injunction designed to change the unconstitutional conditions in a juvenile detention center and reversing a conviction of a client at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

• Represents franchisors and suppliers at every stage of product distribution. Zach frequently represents clients seeking to preserve, protect or align product distribution according to commercial objectives; this includes protecting products from unfair competition, expanding distribution channels through contract negotiations and navigating relationship laws impacting termination of relationships
• Works with clients to manage their risk and take measures to avoid litigation. Zach regularly identifies strategies to help clients avoid litigation, including on issues like concluding a distribution or franchise relationship.

• Successfully represented a large franchisor in federal court against a franchisee who orchestrated a surreptitious scheme through an undisclosed competing business, delivering a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction through a motion for summary judgment.
• Achieved successful outcome through a motion to dismiss for a large pharmaceutical client in a contract dispute with a distributor.
• Secured a motion for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of a recreational equipment manufacturer enforcing a choice-of-law clause in a distribution agreement.
• Obtained two early dismissals through two motions to dismiss enforcing choice-of-law and forum selection clauses in a franchise agreement that involved novel legal issues.