T H E
N O W
Cover spread from left to right: Alexandra ‘Lexie’ White, Tom Melsheimer, Natasha Harrison (seated), Eric Posner, Patricia Brown Holmes, John C. Taylor, Lisa Laukitis, Ricardo Cedillo, Caitlin Halligan, Donna Wilson, Elaine Golin, Kelley Cornish, Darin McAtee
INSIDE CRAVATH’S 200 YEARS OF PRO BONO HOW SUSMAN GODFREY PREVAILED FOR HOUSE CANARY SELENDY & GAY DISRUPT THE BIG LAW MODEL GUIDES TO TOP LEGAL CONSULTANTS, EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS & MORE PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES ON WHAT IT TAKES
S G Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C., located in New Orleans, Louisiana is a nationally renowned full service law firm recognized for commercial litigation and transactions. Our talented team of attorneys provides our clients with the astute knowledge of a large firm practice, but with responsiveness, personal attention and sensible staffing of a smaller firm, all while delivering quality legal services effectively and efficiently. Clients receive the benefit of the firm’s proficiency across all disciplines, through handselected, integrated teams of experienced transactional and litigation lawyers. The hallmark of our service is our attention to the needs of our clients that goes beyond the rules of professional responsibility. When representation requires litigation, we are aggressive trial lawyers, who are not afraid to fight to protect our clients’ rights. We also believe in reasonableness and cooperation, however, and adjust our representation to suit the needs of any particular client. A client who brings us a transactional matter can expect an honest and accurate appraisal of the matter and a resolution in the most practical, direct and economically feasible manner.
Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. Co-Managing Members, James M. Garner & Leopold Z. Sher 909 Poydras Street, Suite 2800, New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 299-2100 • www.shergarner.com
Winston & Strawn congratulates our elite team of lawyers listed among Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Lawyers in America”
Matthew Bergmann
Mats Carlston
Linda Coberly
Stephen D’Amore
Michael Elkin
Steven Gavin
Melanie Gray
Chair, Bankruptcy Litigation Practice
Jeffrey Kessler
Partner, Corporate Department
George Lombardi
Tom Melsheimer
Joel Rubinstein
Co-Chair, M&A Practice
Firm Vice Chairman
Thomas Patrick Lane
Co-Chair, Technology, Digital Media, and Entertainment Practice
Co-Chair, Finance Practice
Co-Chair, Litigation Department
Kathi Vidal
Silicon Valley Managing Partner
North America
Europe
Asia
winston.com
Managing Partner Chicago, Chair, Appellate & Critical Motions Practice
Dallas Managing Partner
Co-Chair, Litigation Department
Co-Executive Chairman Co-Chair, Antitrust/Competition Sports Law Practices
Chair, Capital Markets Practice
HALL OF FAME
HALL OF FAME
... Steve Susman
... Parker Folse
Vineet Bhatia
Jacob Buchdahl
Bill Carmody
Erica Harris
Geoffrey Harrison
Neal Manne
Shawn Rabin
Shawn Raymond
Kalpana Srinivasan
Max Tribble
Mark Wawro
Lexie White
LOS ANGELES | SEATTLE | HOUSTON | NEW YORK susmangodfrey.com
{ CONTENTS } 16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 18 A FRESH APPROACH
Selendy & Gay fuses values with results to disrupt the law firm model.
24 HELPING FOX GUARD THE WORKPLACE
24
Before #MeToo, Bernstein Litowitz’s shareholder lawsuit against Fox’s board created a new oversight structure to combat harassment.
36 CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF SUCCESS
Reid Collins & Tsai has become a financial litigation force in rapid fashion by posting out-of-the park grand-slam results.
48 STANDING TALL: CRAVATH’S 200 YEARS OF PRO BONO
Cravath’s pursuit of the long arc of Justice has defined the firm for more than two centuries.
54 REVENGE OF THE HATCHLINGS
36
This is a tale of how Susman Godfrey won almost a billion dollars for HouseCanary.
64 POETIC JUSTICE
54
The partners at Keller Lenkner explain how they are turning the tables to protect workers’ rights.
69 THE MOST POWERFUL CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
71
Our 12th annual guide to 100 of the very best lawyers for employers also includes leaders in employee benefits, labor and employment, and immigration, along with “up and comers” and Hall of Fame members. Featuring:
71 Johnine Barnes of Greenberg Traurig 75 Mark Lerner of Kasowitz Benson 79 Robert Brooks of Adler Pollock 83 Betty Graumlich of Reed Smith 85 Steven Eckhaus of McDermott Will 89 Jay Krupin of Baker Hostetler 91 Charles Foster of Foster LLP 95 Jonathan Sulds of Greenberg Traurig 99 Marissa Holob of Kramer Levin
101 100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS Once again, our list is chock full with the most brilliant litigation funders, crisis communicators, marketing mavens, management advisors and recruiters in the world. Featuring:
103 Michael Nicolas of Longford Capital 107 Patty Morissy of Mlegal 4
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
2019
{ CONTENTS }
103
109 Karen Kaplowitz of The New Ellis Group 111 Andrew Longstreth of Infinite Global 113 Gulam Zade of LOGICFORCE 115 Kelsey Eidbo of Infinite Global 117 Phillip Hampton of LOGICFORCE 119 Divya Bala of Lippman Jungers 121 Ralph Sutton of Bentham IMF
125 THE HALL OF FAME
125
In the Hall of Fame’s fourth year, we have added 41 lawyers to the permanent group of honorees and feature a Q&A with one of the true lions of the plaintiff bar, Patrick McGroder.
137 THE LEGENDS
It’s no wonder that each year we struggle to find the right words to describe the astounding group of advocates who earn recognition as the Lawdragon Legends – the most elite of the nation’s elite lawyers.
148 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA For the 14th year, we present to you The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. This year’s guide features a 500 that is 40 percent women – a new record – and 20 percent inclusive. Featuring:
137
148
6
151 Patricia Brown Holmes of Riley Safter 157 Donna Wilson of Manatt 161 Eric Posner of MoloLamken 167 Lauren Angelilli of Cravath 171 Tom Melsheimer of Winston & Strawn 175 Nicholas Gravante of Boies Schiller 179 Natasha Harrison of Boies Schiller 183 Kelley Cornish of Paul Weiss 187 Milton Williams of Walden Macht 193 Elaine Golin of Wachtell 199 Ryan Dzierniejko of Skadden 203 Lisa Laukitis of Skadden 207 Caitlin Halligan of Selendy & Gay 211 John Taylor and Dave Ring of Taylor & Ring 217 Alexandra “Lexie” White of Susman Godfrey 221 Jeroen van Kwawegen of Bernstein Litowitz 225 Larry Stromfeld of Cadwalader 231 Ellen Holloman of Cadwalader 237 Sean O’Shea of Cadwalader 241 Ricardo Cedillo of Davis Cedillo 245 Kenneth T. Lumb of Corboy & Demetrio 249 Bonny Sweeney of Hausfeld 253 Luis Penalver of Cahill Gordon 255 Michael Kelly, Richard Schoenberger and Doris Cheng of Walkup Melodia
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Congratulations to Our Dragons
Max Berger New York
John Browne New York
Hannah Ross New York
Salvatore Graziano New York
Gerald Silk New York
Mark Lebovitch New York
Jeroen van Kwawegen New York
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is one of the nation’s leaders advising institutional investors on corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation issues. On behalf of its clients, BLB&G has obtained more significant recoveries and precedent-setting corporate governance reforms than any other law firm representing shareholders in securities litigation. The integrity of our capital markets depends on meaningful checks and balances to curb fraud and misconduct. Since our founding in 1983, we have gone up against the world’s largest and most powerful companies and law firms, representing our clients in a wide variety of high-profile cases arising out of financial wrongdoing and corporate misconduct, and we have won, recovering over $33 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. Thank you to Lawdragon for recognizing the hard work and dedication of our senior partners.
Learn more | www.blbglaw.com | 800-380-8496
We are a firm of internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and strategic advisors known for our creative, aggressive, and efficient pursuit of success for our clients. Over two decades, Boies Schiller Flexner has established a record of taking on and winning complex, groundbreaking, and cross-border matters in diverse circumstances and industries. We regularly take cases to trial and we prepare each one accordingly from the start. We have the experience, judgment, and vision to develop the arguments that achieve favorable outcomes—whether those arguments are needed inside or outside of the courtroom. With 15 offices located throughout the United States and in London, we operate as one firm with a seamless approach to building the most skillful and cost-effective team possible for every matter. New York | Albany | Armonk | D.C. | Ft. Lauderdale | Hanover | Hollywood | Las Vegas London | Los Angeles | Miami | Orlando | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Santa Monica www.bsfllp.com
David Boies
Jonathan Schiller
Christopher Caldwell
Karen Dunn
Karen Dyer
Nicholas Gravante
Natasha Harrison
William Isaacson
Philip Korologos
Harlan Levy
Stuart Singer
Steve Zack Lawdragon Hall of Fame
We congratulate our Lawdragons.
Issue 20 LAWDRAGON INC. PUBLISHER/CHIEF
305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013
EXECUTIVE OFFICER K atrina D ewey katrina @ lawdragon . com
© Lawdragon Inc. 2020 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE
permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all
PRESIDENT
solicitation, reprint and plaque requests from services
J ohn R yan
that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” email. These
john @ lawdragon . com
are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you purchase any desired services from Carlton Dyce at
VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS
carlton@lawdragon.com.
DEVELOPMENT AND SALES C arlton D yce carlton @ lawdragon . com
ART DIRECTOR S tephanie B lackman sb @ blackmandesign . net
ASSISTANT EDITORS J ames L angford james @ lawdragon . com
A lison P reece alison @ lawdragon . com
For editorial inquires or to pitch stories, contact John Ryan at john@lawdragon.com. For reprints or other promotional materials, contact Carlton Dyce at carlton@lawdragon.com. You can also purchase products at the Lawdragon Shop at www.lawdragon.com/lawdragon-shop.
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT M ichelle F ox michelle @ lawdragon . com
LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY L aura B arisonzi , A my C antrell , J ustin C lemons , D ave C ross , L aura C rosta , R ory E arn S haw , J ay G unning / O wl B ridge M edia , J osh H uskin , M ichelle N olan , C hris R enton , F elix S anchez
10
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
C HRISTOPHER A. S EEGER
A founding partner of Seeger Weiss LLP, Christopher Seeger is broadly recognized as one of the nation’s most versatile and accomplished plaintiffs’ attorneys, known for his leadership role in some of the most innovative and groundbreaking multidistrict litigations of the last two decades. These include the NFL Concussion Litigation, where he served as lead counsel and chief negotiator in obtaining an uncapped settlement valued at more than $1 billion on behalf of thousands of retired NFL players and their families. In the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, a multidistrict litigation revolving around a paramount medical, social, and legal crisis of our time, Mr. Seeger serves as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a Negotiation Class of over 34,000 counties and cities. Mr. Seeger has also served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the Negotiating Committee in the nationwide Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation, resulting in a $21 billion settlement; as Chair of the Trial Committee in the Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation, resulting in a $1 billion settlement; on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Depuy Orthopaedics ASH Hip Implant Products MDL, resulting in an almost $3 billion settlement; and as the Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Settlement Negotiation Committee in the Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, resulting in a $1.51 billion settlement that resolved multi-jurisdictional litigation. He also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability MDL and Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the nationwide Intel CPU Litigation. With offices in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Seeger Weiss LLP is one of the preeminent plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation, representing clients in pharmaceutical injury, product liability, consumer fraud, environmental contamination, and whistleblower cases, among many others. The firm is known for leading some of the most complex and high-profile multidistrict mass tort and class action litigations in the United States, securing landmark settlements and verdicts. According to Chambers USA 2019, “Christopher Seeger is an expert advocate for plaintiffs in large-scale product liability disputes, including those involving manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies. Sources note that ‘he has established himself as one of the lead go-to lawyers in the largest and highest profile plaintiffs’ cases,’ resulting in his reputation as a lawyer ‘companies don’t want to be across from.’” READ MORE: WWW.SEEGERWEISS.COM
SEEGERWEISS LLP
55 CHALLENGER ROAD, RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 888.584.0411 212.584.0700 W W W. S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M I N F O @ S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M
D R U G A N D T O X I C I N J U R Y P E R S O N A L I N J U R Y C L A S S A C T I O N S W H I S T L E B L O W E R L I T I G AT I O N C O M M E R C I A L D I S P U T E S
Attorney Advertising
CONGRATULATIONS TO ROBBINS GELLER’S
2019 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA: Darren Robbins, Paul Geller, Samuel Rudman, Randall Baron, Daniel Drosman, Rachel Jensen, Shawn Williams, Spencer Burkholz, and Mike Dowd, who has been permanently elevated to the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.
THE RIGHT CHOICE | www.rgrdlaw.com
Our mission is to fight for our clients with courage, conviction and integrity. Skilled, diligent and committed, Mary Alexander is an energetic advocate for truth and justice on behalf of people who have been wrongfully injured. Her firm has a long track record of multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements as well as a $1.15 billion verdict against lead paint companies involving the poisoning of children in their homes.
LAWDRAGON
5 0 0 L E A D I N G L AW Y E R S I N A M E R I C A
44 M O N TGOM ERY ST ., SU I T E 1 3 0 3 , SAN FRANC I S CO, CA 94104 • PH: 415.433.4440 • FX: 415.433.5440 • MARYALEXAND ERLAW.COM
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC salutes this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America and congratulates our own honorees: Agnieszka Fryszman Anita Hill Kalpana Kotagal Betsy Miller Victoria Nugent Julie Goldsmith Reiser Joseph Sellers Daniel Small Steven Toll Antitrust | Civil Rights & Employment | Complex Tort Litigation | Consumer Protection Employee Benefits / ERISA | Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling | Human Rights | Public Client Securities Litigation & Investor Protection | Whistleblower / False Claims Act
202.408.4600 | cohenmilstein.com CHICAGO, IL | NEW YORK, NY | PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL PHILADELPHIA, PA | RALEIGH, NC | WASHINGTON, DC
500
{
S
}
A NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
ELDOM HAS THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION – AND THE POTENTIAL FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE – BEEN BETTER REFLECTED IN THESE PAGES. IT’S LESS ABOUT INCREASING THE NUMBERS OF FRESH FACES IN OUR GUIDES TO LEADING LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS, WHICH HAPPENS EVERY YEAR, AND MORE ABOUT UNDERSCORING A NEW REALITY: EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND INNOVATION ARE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS TO THE HEALTH OF OUR LEGAL INSTITUTIONS, NO LONGER MERE TALKING POINTS. THE TREND IS UNFOLDING CONCURRENTLY WITH ONGOING THREATS TO THE RULEOF-LAW AT HOME AND ABROAD, THE EXACT CONTOURS OF WHICH ARE NOT ALWAYS ENTIRELY CLEAR. WHAT’S MORE CLEAR TO US IS THAT IT IS THE LAWYERS IN THIS MAGAZINE WHO WILL BE CRITICAL IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH OUR CORE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE CARRY INTO THE 2020S AND BEYOND.
At its best, the law is a profession that is both firmly rooted in historic (if less inclusive) roots and achievement while always remaining dedicated to creative improvements in client service and broadening the access to justice. In “Standing Tall,” Cravath exemplifies this dynamic – adding new success in a long line of pro bono work that now spans two centuries. Our features on Bernstein Litowitz and Susman Godfrey show the continuing success of the powerhouse litigation model; our profiles of Selendy & Gay and Keller Lenkner reveal the promise that newer innovators bring to the legal industry. Somewhere in the middle is Reid Collins & Tsai, a firm that is “Celebrating 10 Years” and has earned astonishing results in its first decade. We are honored that Patricia Brown Holmes of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila – the first African-American female managing partner and founding partner of a major U.S. national law firm – graces the opening of our Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyer guides. Like the broader profession, Lawdragon is proud to celebrate the past while expressing excitement for the future. After all, 2020 will be our 15th anniversary. You will of course continue to see our hallmark guides to the 500 Leading Lawyers and 100 Legal Consultants & Strategists, as well as our ongoing coverage from Guantanamo Bay – where remarkably we have been one of just a few news organizations in the world to report regularly on the military commissions. But you will also see a bevy of new 500 guides covering varying practice areas and diving into fresh global regions – 2020 will be our best year yet. We know, as our readers surely do, that with the right team any uncertainty associated with shifting landscapes brings more opportunity than peril.
K AT R I N A D E W E Y Publisher and CEO katrina@lawdragon.com
16
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
J O H N R YA N Editor-in-Chief john@lawdragon.com
“All Star Litigation Shop.” —LAW360
NEW YORK 430 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 T: 212.607.8160
WASHINGTON, D.C. 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 T: 202.556.2000
www.mololamken.com
CHICAGO 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 T: 312.450.6700
THE POWERHOUSE CORPS OF LAWYERS who formed Selendy & Gay nearly two years ago were well acquainted with success. They had won landmark cases, recovered vast sums for clients and pioneered new practice areas while at Quinn Emanuel, one of the world’s top litigation firms. And yet, they wondered whether there was something more – a better law firm – to be built. “We looked at how law firms have been doing things for decades and asked, ‘How could we do it different? How could we do it better?’”, says David Elsberg, a founding partner. In this reimagining, Selendy & Gay disrupted the traditional law firm model, building a firm
complex commercial litigations, public interest cases, internal investigations and white-collar work. These victories include a suit brought by U.S. Bank against UBS Real Estate Securities over losses suffered in three RMBS trusts, resulting in a record-setting $850M recovery; numerous matters for McKinsey & Co. in the most highly publicized bankruptcy battle of the decade; and key wins on behalf of private equity titan Cerberus Capital Management as a plaintiff in an ongoing $950M claim against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. That these victories reflect both plaintiff and defense-side success is by design; Selendy &
SELENDY & GAY FUSES VALUES WITH RESULTS TO
APPROACH
DISRUPT THE LAW FIRM MODEL.
BY ALISON PREECE
based on a shared commitment to pro bono and public interest work, a high-performance management structure, an apprentice-based training model for associates and a commitment to diversity in all its forms. Everything from the clients they represent to their operational structure reinforces this modern approach to high-profile, high-risk litigation. One need look no further than the artwork in their New York City office, curated by founding partner Jennifer Selendy, to understand their principles. “A lot of the work is done from recycled, second-generation materials,” Selendy says. “There’s a lot of exploration of identity in the work,” reflecting the firm’s origin and values (environmental conservation being a major one). Selendy and Elsberg serve as co-managing partners of the firm and are part of the founding team that includes Selendy’s husband, Philippe Selendy, Faith Gay and five other prominent partners. In less than two years, the young firm has already captured headlines and logged big wins in 18
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Gay maintains a 50/50 split of stakeholder representations, something of an anomaly among top litigation firms. “This approach yields different perspectives, bodies of case law and styles of argument,” explains Elsberg. “Bridging these varied areas of law makes you a more formidable advocate for clients.” The firm’s attorneys hail from an array of professional backgrounds and have held top posts in the public sector, technology and academia. Similarly, many administrative staffers were recruited from outside the legal industry, including finance, media and consulting firms. These professionals are tasked with running the business aspects of the firm so the lawyers can focus on their practices. “I cannot be the source of creative thinking in operations or marketing,” says Selendy. “We treat our executives as equals. They’re at our partner meetings. They come to us with innovative ideas in their respective fields that we can evaluate.” The firm also stands out – and has been awarded – for its efforts to create new pathways for women
PHOTO BY: JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA
David Elsberg and Jennifer Selendy
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
19
“THE LAW IS NOT JUST A WAY TO EARN MONEY,” says Selendy. “Being a lawyer and practicing at the level we do is a real privilege, and comes with responsibilities. It is a privilege to be able to put our hands on the scale on issues and cases that we care about, working for clients that we choose to work for.”
and minorities. In addition to being majority female-owned, Selendy & Gay employs more LGBTQ and attorneys of color (21% of attorneys and over 30% of associates, respectively) than the vast majority of Big Law firms. “The value of diversity is well accepted,” says Selendy. “Working with men and women, LGBTQ individuals, and people of color enhances your experience. It enhances the ideas that get brought to the table. How are we going to be effective advocates to diverse juries in a diverse city without reflecting that city within our own walls?” Too often, Big Law seems resigned that diversity initiatives end at recruiting and pays little attention to development and retention. This notion doesn’t fly at Selendy & Gay because, as Elsberg explains, “When we’re recruiting for any position, we’re doing it in a way that removes obstacles that shouldn’t be there in the first place. Once someone comes onboard, we are fully invested in their advancement.” Though studies on implicit bias have been around for decades, taking affirmative steps to remove these biases is rarely done in the legal industry, Selendy says. For its part, Selendy & Gay has responded to this dilemma not with quotas, but with processes that eliminate bias at the hiring phase and have led to an abundance of diversity at every level. Evaluations for prospective new associates include blind assessments, in which partners receive and are asked to grade a candidate’s written case study without names or other identifying details. This removes any unconscious bias surrounding race or gender, enabling hiring decisions that are truly merit-based. The result 20
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
is a highly talented associate base with strong numbers of women and people of color. The equity partnership is over 50% female – extremely rare among law firms, and a strong selling point both to new recruits and prospective clients. The composition of the upper echelon wasn’t deliberate, however. “It’s not novel that 50% of law school classes are female,” Selendy explains. “So when we sat down with the whiteboard and asked, ‘Who are the best lawyers we know and want to practice with?’, it just happened that the split was 50/50.” Another important differentiator are the values that guide the firm’s caseload. “The law is not just a way to earn money,” says Selendy. “Being a lawyer and practicing at the level we do is a real privilege, and comes with responsibilities. It is a privilege to be able to put our hands on the scale on issues and cases we care about, working for clients that we choose to take on.” In hiring, the firm’s lawyers are transparent about their values as a firm and their desire for associates who share those values. The firm seeks attorneys driven by more than the almighty dollar. They do not supply, for instance, profitsper-partner numbers to outside publications, which has become something of a standard in the industry. “If money is your primary focus, and we’re not sharing that information, then we’re tending to push away people who are going into law just for the money,” says Selendy. When associates join, they quickly discover the firm has a “very, very flat structure,” Elsberg explains. First-year associates often conduct depositions and arbitrations, and even argue in court.
CONGRATULATIONS to Lieff Cabraser’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers for 2019
Elizabeth J. Cabraser
Richard M. Heimann
Kelly M. Dermody
Eric B Fastiff
SAN FRANCISCO NEW YORK NASHVILLE lieffcabraser.com
“We give an associate a piece of a closing argument or a piece of a cross-examination,” Elsberg says. “The goal is to build their skills and relationships with clients at a much quicker clip than in traditional Big Law firms.” Selendy and Elsberg say the firm is comfortable with – and may even prefer – associates who have spent a year or two at a Big Law firm before joining. Nothing beats the experience of seeing the difference firsthand. Associates are also trained to be “good business generators,” says Selendy, which includes monthly business development training sessions, and learning “the importance of building networks as a foundation for client development.” “We want them to be able to carry the firm forward when we’re dragged out kicking and screaming,” jokes Selendy. Finally, the firm is proud of the cases it turns away. The founding partners left successful law practices, in part, to gain greater control over the cases they accept. The firm openly pursues matters adverse to big banks and Big Pharma; it also has turned down representation of individuals in government and certain criminal defendants with whom the partners prefer not to associate. These hard lines have freed attorneys to take on cases from which many Big Law firms would be conflicted. Selendy & Gay recently filed a case against the major banks that underwrote the municipal debt in Puerto Rico for their role in its financial collapse and bankruptcy. Similarly,
they’re representing Fairfield Sentry, a feeder fund to Madoff, in a sweeping bankruptcy case seeking billions of dollars from more than 250 defendants, including many banks. The values-based approach to choosing clients works in part because of the small size of the partnership – currently at 12 – and the firm’s single-office structure. While the firm’s success provides the platform for growth, Selendy & Gay has chosen to remain small and nimble so that each voice is heard and the unique culture maintained. While essential to the model, the size has been an adjustment for some of the partners who joined from Big Law. “There is intimacy in working so closely with other people that I have really only experienced on a trial team before,” says Selendy. “The challenge is really being selfaware about how much you impact the people around you, because I see how they impact me.” And while they are deliberately remaining small, sometimes hiring can be a challenge when they want every member of their team to share the same values and be able to keep step with a fast-moving firm with a brimming case load. Selendy & Gay currently employs 34 of the top U.S. associates, including one who will clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. “While you want to make sure every person is excellent,” says Elsberg, “there are times where you just think, ‘If I had five more associates on this team right now, it would be fantastic.’”
THE FIRM IS PROUD OF THE CASES IT TURNS AWAY. The founding partners left successful law practices, in part, to gain greater control over the cases they accept. The firm openly pursues matters adverse to big banks and Big Pharma; it also has turned down representation of individuals in government and certain criminal defendants with whom the partners prefer not to associate. 22
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Richard Brand
Christopher Cox
Ellen Holloman
Sean O’Shea
Patrick Quinn
Lary Stromfeld
Congratulations. Congratulations to our partners Richard Brand, Christopher Cox, Ellen Holloman, Sean O’Shea, Patrick Quinn and Lary Stromfeld for being named to the 2019 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. And a big thank-you to our clients for the opportunity to serve them on their most important transactions and matters — and for being a part of our more than 225-year history of professional excellence.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP www.cadwalader.com
HELPING FOX GUARD THE WORKPLACE BY KATRINA DEWEY
The adage that hindsight is 20/20 makes no mention of its peculiar tendency to distort. That applies with particular force to seismic cultural shifts, such as the growing public awareness of sexual harassment and assaults fueled by the #MeToo movement. The ubiquity of this misconduct seems so obvious now, as does the importance of ending corporate complicity in covering it up or denying the problem. But in this tale of before and after, there was a time such allegations were shocking and the proper response unknown. In mid-2016, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann began exploring claims for the City of Monroe Employees’ Retirement System, a 21st Century Fox shareholder, alleging that the company’s board had failed in its duty to protect the company and its investors from what was being revealed as widespread workplace harassment and discrimination at Fox News. Assault allegations against movie producer Harvey Weinstein wouldn’t be made public until October 2017, and television personalities Charlie Rose and Bill O’Reilly reigned as stars at CBS and Fox News. At the time the top-flight plaintiff securities litigation firm started investigating Fox, corporate boards avoided any involvement with sexual harassment cases (except, perhaps, if their approval was necessary for a large payout – and even that was routinely covered by a non-disclosure agreement). Boards simply did not view it as part of their job to ensure a moral and legal corporate culture. The firm examined what was going on at Fox before former news anchor Gretchen Carlson made public her sexual harassment claim against then-Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and, subsequently, myriad other harassment and discrimination claims promptly came to light. In the summer of 2016, Bernstein Litowitz sent Fox News a “books and records demand” – a common predecessor to a derivative lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Fox and its
BEFORE #METOO, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ’S SHAREHOLDER LAWSUIT AGAINST FOX’S BOARD CREATED A NEW OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE TO COMBAT HARASSMENT. MAX BERGER (LEFT), REBECCA BOON AND MARK LEBOVITCH LED THE EFFORT.
Photo by Michael Meyer
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
25
w
Board. The demand and subsequent complaint led to a landmark settlement in which the broadcasting giant recouped $90 million – one of the largest financial recoveries ever obtained in a dispute purely about corporate governance. But to the Bernstein Litowitz team, the monetary relief was, in many ways, of secondary importance. Led by founding partner Max Berger, the firm was only too aware of the limitations of re-
commitment to “zero tolerance” of workplace harassment and discrimination. The settlement required that any minority dissenting reports among Council members are made public, guaranteeing full public access to any unresolved issues of workplace misconduct at the company. The body was given a mandatory five-year term. And, if Fox chooses not to extend it, the company must publicly explain why.
THE FOX SETTLEMENT AND COUNCIL STRUCTURE COULD HAVE A LASTING IMPACT ON THE FIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT THROUGHOUT CORPORATE AMERICA BY SERVING AS A BLUEPRINT FOR OTHER PUBLIC COMPANIES FACING THE SAME ISSUES. couping for the company coffers. The challenge they saw was to ensure this type of top-down, systemic cultural misconduct would not happen again. For Monroe and Bernstein Litowitz, this case was about fixing a toxic culture. The parties engaged in fierce and unprecedented negotiations over the course of a year to create a mechanism that would show the public that the company was committed to changing a workplace environment that had allowed for such serious and scandalous abuses. In the end, they created what was entitled the “Fox News Workplace Professionalism and Inclusion Council.” This majority-independent oversight body, working independent of and in coordination with the company’s Board, was tasked with establishing appropriate standards to prevent, investigate and remediate sexual harassment and all forms of discrimination at Fox News. The Council is composed of the chief HR officer and General Counsel of Fox News, and four independent diversity and workplace experts: former federal judge Barbara Jones, who chaired the Congressional committee investigating and proposing policies to correct sexual harassment in the military; and three of the corporate world’s most notable leaders in crafting policies to fight corporate discrimination and harassment: Sylvia Hewlett, Brande Stellings, and Virgil Smith. As a result of Monroe’s and Bernstein Litowitz’s litigation efforts, the Council was given broad power to oversee and recommend policies and procedures, hire outside consultants, and conduct independent investigations as needed. The Council is also structured to provide complete transparency and public disclosure of its 26
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
The Fox settlement and Council structure could have a lasting impact on the fight against sexual harassment throughout corporate America by serving as a blueprint for other public companies facing the same issues. Columbia Law Professor Suzanne Goldberg, an expert in harassment and discrimination policy, submitted a Declaration in support of the Fox settlement stating: “The multifaceted non-monetary relief set forth in the Agreement may also prove to be a model for other employers that have not developed adequate or effective systems and implementation practices to address sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination in their workplaces.” In a roundtable discussion with members of the Bernstein Litowitz team – Berger, partner Mark Lebovitch and senior counsel Rebecca Boon – Berger reflected on how the firm has leveraged litigation to obtain important corporate governance reforms that have had positive impacts for society. “I am extraordinarily proud of what the team has accomplished in this case, and what we have achieved in over 36 years in practice. I am proud to say we have had a meaningful and materially positive impact on corporate misconduct and behavior and how it’s treated at high-visibility public companies,” Berger said. Lawdragon: What impact have you seen from the Fox case on other kinds of derivative suits and other actions? Max Berger: I think about this every time I see coverage of former CBS chief Les Moonves or some other high-profile executive or celebrity being caught up in #MeToo. What we are seeing
in the corporate reaction to senior executive misconduct is reflective of, and responsive to, what we did at Fox News. Historically, I think official reactions to these types of scandals had been pretty cynical. Perhaps a quick termination, often sadly accompanied by a significant payout, and then a board might hire a team of outside lawyers who ultimately just do the board’s bidding and maybe issue a cosmetic report assuring stakeholders “all is now well.” But, since our Fox case, this seems to be taking on a different complexion, where the responses seem to be serious and not a whitewash, or downplaying, of events that have occurred. The general public may not make this connection because our settlement came just as the Harvey Weinstein allegations had been reported and as the #MeToo movement became headline news, but the business world took notice. Other companies are going to put similar remedies in place. Mark Lebovitch: We can’t yet fully judge the impact that the Fox settlement has had because in many industries we are still dealing with initial reactions to the crisis, if you will. How corporations are going to deal with the issue in the long term proactively is still taking shape. Firing a senior executive who acts inappropriately, like Les Moonves, and denying him his entire severance package, should be a no-brainer. But that’s just boards being reactive. I am proud of the proactive structure we put in place at Fox. It is very difficult for a company to do this. It’s a credit not just to our litigation but to Fox’s former general counsel and outside counsel. To be proactive and say, “OK, we’re going to put in place structures that should prevent this from ever happening again” invites an entirely new environment of accountability and scrutiny. You have to hold people accountable for wrongdoing. But this Council is about creating a better workplace going forward, and I think the companies who are going through these crises all have the opportunity to create such meaningful fixes. Rebecca Boon: Historically, these types of cases — shareholder litigation alleging this sort of misconduct — were not successful. So, the fact that we are seeing more and more of these cases being brought in the securities, and particularly the derivative context, is itself directly related 28
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
to the fact that we were successful and accomplished something meaningful. I think people are recognizing that and starting to bring cases in the aftermath of what we did. LD: As the Fox case was unfolding, there was such a shock factor to the picture of bad behavior that appears to have been rampant. What role did that play in the litigation and your negotiations? ML: When the Roger Ailes allegations came out in 2016, I didn’t fully appreciate that this kind of misconduct was as prevalent as we now know it to be. In discussions with our experts, that became the main reason why I feel so strongly that corporations should follow some form of what we did in the Fox settlement. Companies should be proactive even if they haven’t been hit yet. It sends such a positive message to their employees in so many necessary ways. MB: Mark’s right. Finding the right remedy for misconduct (and putting sunlight on it) is so positive. With one report from the Fox Council, I literally got goosebumps. It’s so exciting to see Barbara Jones and Sylvia Hewlett working with the Council, and the seriousness with which they take their jobs, and the reports that they’re coming up with. Fox News has to pay them for their service. And it’s a five-year life. We’re not talking about people on this Council who can be pushed around. LD: Not at all. Can you talk a bit about the process of putting this Council together? ML: We had a funny chicken-and-egg problem in trying to build a mechanism with teeth. We were negotiating the structure and powers of the Council and working with the company to get their buy in – and I would be remiss if I didn’t say how much credit was due to Greg Varallo, who was then 21st Century Fox’s outside lawyer. [And who recently joined Bernstein Litowitz as a partner.] We were engaged in adversarial litigation while trying to work cooperatively to bring Fox from a form of “worst to first” in the area of anti-harassment corporate structures. Once we started vetting candidates, I was soon pleasantly surprised by the quality of the people that both sides were bringing to the Council, such as Judge Barbara Jones. That helped give comfort to the company, and helped us get better powers for the Council. RB: What makes it work now is these are people who want to get it right. They are not going
KA
Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
to be intimidated even if the company tried. The company’s commitment to the Council and the respect it has for the members is itself a signal of, “Hey we’re going to give you the support.” Governance structures like this are not needed if people just do the right thing. Anyone in a public company, controllers like the Murdochs or people like Roger Ailes or Harvey Weinstein, can abuse their powers and, ultimately, governance can just be a mere hurdle to bad actors. But if you give governance powers to the right people, then you can be much more effective at impeding bad actors. MB: A lot of credit is due to the company and their counsel. We said, “this could and should be a win-win for the company and its shareholders.” Ultimately, they bought into it. But, even then, it remained a bruising negotiation. Because giving up control is so significant and so rare – it really is amazing that it happened. We would sit there and sometimes spend 45 minutes on a word in this multi-page governing document. Rebecca really shined in this process. She kept us very focused on what we had to do and did much of the heavy lifting drafting-wise and outlining what was acceptable. She was on the frontlines saying, “OK, I think we can live with this; we can’t live with that.” And what we got was not 100 percent of what we wanted, but it was pretty darn close. LD: We interviewed Anita Hill recently and discussed how after she testified during the September 1991 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, structures began to be set up to help people who felt their harassment claims hadn’t been heard to come forward. And how that has morphed into non-disclosure agreements and, ultimately, protecting corporations. And over the years, we’ve talked about how Bernstein Litowitz has brought to the table shareholders with an interest in stopping misconduct and threatening to withhold their investment in companies that are going to engage in this kind of behavior. That’s powerful. Because what employment lawyers can typically do is advise a company not to do something and then create a non-disclosure agreement, a carrot if you will. But what you do is bring a stick by working on the money side and saying, “If you want investors to be invested in your company, then you have to take a different approach.” Bringing that leverage – as well as 30
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
an awareness and a fluency in something that hasn’t normally been a shareholder issue – is just what the times needed. And nobody else did it. So that’s kind of incredible. MB: Thank you. We agree! ML: Max gets a nod there because legally it was a tough claim. We just didn’t know how it would go. As we said, it was before Harvey Weinstein, before #MeToo went mainstream. MB: We just all said, “Somebody has to do it, no matter what the risk.” ML: We didn’t know if there was a viable claim under Delaware law, much less whether we would actually recover any money. MB: Whether we were successful or not in the litigation, 100 percent we felt we would have a positive impact. The litigation would have been public. Everybody would have known what it was that we were claiming. And if we ended up with a fight on our hands, it would have been public and bloody and shareholders would have been on our side. RB: Nobody is supportive of this type of behavior and you’d have to be out of your mind to want to defend it – this can’t be good for any company. And while there were substantial legal impediments to our case, a judge would have had to basically say, “You can’t go forward, you can’t bring this case.” I don’t know the judge who’s going to be willing to do that. LD: Good calculation. ML: Our approach with the court, respectfully, was, “We don’t know if you’re going to uphold this, but if you don’t, shame on you. This is a case where there’s something wrong with the system and, if you feel you need to dismiss it, you will need to explain why.” Fortunately, the way things played out, I think Chancellor Andre Bouchard in Delaware appreciated that the conduct we were challenging was not only egregious and gross, in terms of Ailes’ and Bill O’Reilly’s conduct, but also serious in terms of the Chancellor truly having his finger on the pulse of the times and recognizing that widespread misconduct like this really should be treated as a board-level issue. It should be a board issue. As it turned out, the case settled and he didn’t have to write a difficult opinion. But I think he was supportive of making this a corporate governance issue, where in the past there was no legal avenue to do so.
WHETHER WE WERE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT IN THE LITIGATION, 100 PERCENT WE FELT WE WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC. EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT IT WAS THAT WE WERE CLAIMING. AND IF WE ENDED UP WITH A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC AND BLOODY AND SHAREHOLDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON OUR SIDE. Max Berger LD: Where you made a fork in the road with Fox – from more traditional employment and securities fraud claims – was in building a Council with significant corporate governance authority. Had that been done before? MB: This is not the first time that we, as a firm, have accomplished something like this. There have been several extraordinary prior cases where we used the leverage of our securities claims to negotiate settlement terms that required similar proactive efforts by the companies’ boards – and which had not been done before. For example, we used a similar playbook for our Texaco employment discrimination case (which remains the seminal race discrimination class action settlement in history). Also, to a lesser extent, in our Pfizer shareholder derivative case. The common theme was in saying to our Defendants, “There was really bad behavior at your company, it was embedded in the company’s culture. It’s systemic. And you could either fight our firm for years and there’s going to be wave after wave of negative publicity. We’re not going to agree to any kind of confidentiality of deposition transcripts and things like that. And you’re just going to have to live with – and literally defend – this bad behavior for years.” Or you could be a part of the solution. You could act responsibly, and really stand out and feel good about what you did. Like we feel good about what we do every day. And if you do that, we’re not looking to destroy your company. What we’re looking to do is just improve behavior in a way which really is meaningful and long lasting. ML: We were literally targeting the board, putting pressure directly on the board. Rebecca took the depositions of some of the board members. In Pfizer, they didn’t do the right thing voluntarily; they only settled when we were on the eve of a summary judgment ruling. RB: Fox was really interesting. They wanted to be seen favorably, but there was also a tension 32
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
because the natural reaction, understandably, is, “We’re not going to let anybody else tell us what to do and how to do it and also give up 100 percent control and have public disclosure and public filings.” MB: We made it very clear that it’s meaningless – it’s absolutely meaningless – unless Fox was held accountable in a public arena. And that they would not need to worry if they’re going to do the right thing. For at least the five-year life of this Council, no one could say you’re not doing your job. ML: Getting the company’s support and buy-in will pay long term dividends. When one company that’s pretty hard-nosed comes to the table to do the right thing, other companies feel, “Well, it’s OK to do it, we’re not going to be singled out.” RB: After our Fox settlement, companies became a lot more proactive in calling out the abusers in their ranks. LD: It’s great to see how, as plaintiff’s lawyers, you sometimes have the ability to change the conversations at the board level. MB: We take our job very seriously. Of course, we’re in business and we need to pay the rent, and keep the lights on, and do all of those things, but there’s nobody at this firm who doesn’t get an equal measure of satisfaction in making a positive social impact. RB: It’s particularly striking because, when Mark and Max started evaluating this case, the #MeToo movement had not yet gone mainstream. And then unveiling our landmark settlement in November 2017, we were really in the midst of the movement. Now we can look back and see that, but it was pretty heady stuff at the time. Breaking new ground. LD: It’s fascinating to watch what’s happening now as more companies struggle with the need to ingrain actual accountability. Do your investor clients have different expectations now? ML: They are certainly more focused on it since Fox. There’s a deep understanding now of the
We are proud to congratulate five of our partners — William T. “Bill” Reid, IV, P. Jason Collins, Lisa S. Tsai, Eric D. Madden, and Marc Dworsky — on being named to the 2019 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Reid Collins is a nationally recognized trial boutique that prosecutes high-stakes, complex business litigation on a success-fee basis. Our team of trial attorneys includes former federal prosecutors, judicial law clerks, entrepreneurs, and forensic accountants. Reid Collins represents bankruptcy trustees, creditor committees, and offshore liquidators in investigating and prosecuting claims against directors and officers, third-party professionals, and financial institutions. Reid Collins also represents public companies, fundmanagers, investment funds, and investors in pursuing claims against global investment banks, top-tier law firms, accounting firms, and other culpable third parties.
reidcollins.com
difference between accountability and merely managing a crisis. Some companies are putting out fires when there is an accusation. At one end of the spectrum you have the Harvey Weinsteins and the Matt Lauers. Instances where, for years, people had tried to shine a light on the misconduct by leadership. But proper governance mechanisms require a proactive approach. RB: If you’re running a company, you want to have a protocol in place for dealing with this. And the longer that you have a protocol in place – a Council, some system – the better you are going to be able to protect everyone. Research shows that false accusations are very rare. But if you’ve got the protocol, you can investigate quickly and clear someone’s name the same way that you can send the message of accountability when a person is guilty. LD: Many people are honestly struggling with the post #MeToo world. And the Council addresses that struggle while we’re all adjusting to our knowledge of what has gone on in workplaces. Now at Fox, there can’t be claims that aren’t known. It’s all on the table there. MB: Things are changing. And I’m sure at all these companies it’s very uncomfortable. The pendulum is in mid-swing. And like in most human endeavors, there are going to be abuses and excesses in the reactions as well. But, by and large, what is happening is incredibly positive. LD: The five-year first life of the Council will allow the pendulum to swing. And maybe it will swing too far one way, but that’s what pendulums do. But as it settles back, we will all now see harassment as a corporate issue. It’s not just an individual issue anymore, it’s becoming a corporate issue, and one that investors can act on. MB: One of the things we anticipated in creating this Council and reaching our agreement was that we wanted to put a protocol and procedures in place that would help prevent unilateral decision-making of any kind. It ’s important to have a formal process in place that people can turn to. RB: Our agreement also provides for public reporting, which is critical, including a vehicle for dissenting voices. So, if decisions are made and even a minority membership of the Council doesn’t like it, there’s a vehicle within that structure for investors to know about that dissent and evaluate it. 34
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
MB: And minority reports of the Council must be disclosed – that was one of the lynchpins from our perspective in Fox. LD: Oh, to have been a fly on the wall as you guys hammered that out .... ML: It really was interesting and memorable. Our hope is that the Fox litigation and settlement, with the benefit of hindsight, is going to get more publicity than it got in the context of the initial 15-minute attention span. What we did was important and we’re very proud, but frankly, Gretchen Carlson filing litigation publicly against Roger Ailes and forgoing a potentially lucrative but mandatory and confidential arbitration against the company itself is the true origin of the story. RB: She was potentially giving up a very deep pocket by not bringing a private lawsuit and arbitration against the company. I’m sure it was strategic, but it was also a way to make her complaints and the complaints of other Fox employees public. It’s possible that in some ways, the mainstreaming of the #MeToo movement hinged on Gretchen’s decision to go public against Roger. LD: You must get satisfaction from what you do every day and the changes that you help make. ML: What’s special about Fox was that we really didn’t know if it would work. We were taking a risk of a loss, a significant economic loss for us as a firm. And it makes it more gratifying that we put ourselves at risk. We took a chance for a cause that we believed in and fortunately it turned out. MB: No one can say that plaintiff securities litigation has not had a positive impact on maintaining, to some extent, the integrity of our capital markets. No one can say that. All you have to do is compare the recoveries that the government gets versus the recoveries that we get. The government got $85 million in Wells Fargo, we got $480 million. The amount of fraud and greed we see, it’s staggering. People already on top of the mountain, people who know better, still do the wrong thing because it puts money in their pockets. That’s why it’s so important that the private bar as well as the government remains vigilant in situations like this because we really can have an impact. LD: Well you can’t change human nature. But you can make it more expensive. MB: We can make it a lot more expensive.
We get excited every time one of our clients is recognized by Lawdragon 500. This time, with our own Burton Taylor included for the fourth time in the Top 100 Legal Consultants, we’re reminded how remarkable it is to work with such outstanding professionals in the legal community.
A D V E R T I S I N G | P U B L I C R E L AT I O N S | B R A N D I N G | D I G I TA L PROVENTUSCONSULTING.COM | 816.842.8111
NO GUTS,
HELPING FOX GUARD THE WORKPLACE BY KATRINA DEWEY
Photography by Laura Crosta From left to right: Eric Madden, Lisa Tsai, Bill Reid, Nate Palmer, Jason Collins, Joshua Bruckerhoff, Rachel Fleishman and Craig Boneau.
Y R O L G O N BEFORE #METOO, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ’S SHAREHOLDER LAWSUIT AGAINST FOX’S BOARD CREATED A NEW OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE TO COMBAT HARASSMENT. MAX BERGER (LEFT), REBECCA BOON AND MARK LEBOVITCH LED THE EFFORT.
CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF SUCCESS
REID COLLINS & TSAI HAS BECOME A FINANCIAL LITIGATION FORCE IN RAPID FASHION. BY KATRINA DEWEY
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
37
REID COLLINS’ SECRET? THE ART OF CREATIVE NECESSITY, A HARD-WON SIXTH SENSE FOR FINDING CLAIMS OTHER LAWYERS WOULDN’T, AND AN URGENT WILL TO WIN. NO IDEA IF THEY HAD A CHANCE. BUT THEY HAD EACH OTHER, TENACITY, AND A DESIRE TO BUILD A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FIRM THAT COULD SLAG FOR VALUABLE CLAIMS OTHER LITIGATORS WOULDN’T TOUCH. THEIR TIMING, IN THE THROES OF THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BETTER.
A ticket, a chance. It was very early in the morning and a Judge Garza was on the line asking Bill Reid to fly down to the Texas border for an interview. Reid, a 2L at St. John’s, had sent resumes to a couple hundred judges, including two Garzas, Emilio and Reynaldo, both of the 5th Circuit. Yeah, sure, he said, before rolling over and going back to sleep; he woke a few hours later, wondering if it was a dream. So, he called Judge Reynaldo Garza’s chambers and confirmed his weekend with the Judge. This was not like any other student’s clerkship interview, most of which lasted half an hour. But Garza wasn’t any other judge. He was one of the first Hispanic students to graduate from the University of Texas Law School and the first Mexican-American federal judge, a man with political connections and a personality as big as the region he served. The next challenge was getting to Brownsville, Texas. Reid had applied for an American Express card earlier that year, and with it came two $99 airline tickets. He used one of his tickets to get to the land far from home. The judge rolled up in his 1983 Jeep Wagoneer. Reid had told the judge he’d be wearing a black leather jacket, but showed up in a suit. “Brown noser,” the Judge said, then drove Reid to his home. There was whisky and a Bishop’s room, a job offer and a friendship ignited. A window opened on a world of possibilities in the law, in Texas, and in life.
No Guts, No Glory Reid Collins has become a financial litigation force in rapid fashion. It’s celebrating its 10th anniversary this year by posting out-of-the park grand-slam results, generating average profits per partner that would make many New York 38
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
firms take notice. It has a docket estimated to generate several hundred million dollars in fees. Among its recent successes are several confidential settlements with top law firms, including Reed Smith in a $500M claim; a Delaware trial decision dissolving Inspirion Delivery Sciences, freeing its priceless anti-opioid technology; and the first plaintiffs’ victory in 30 years defining the safe harbor area of bankruptcy law from the U.S. Supreme Court in Merit Management v. FTI. “Early on, our willingness to bet on ourselves in success-fee plaintiff ’s work, even in cases that we would quickly reject today, gained us national recognition,” says Reid. “Now after ten years, the cases that we are taking are bigger and better, the team is even stronger and the path ahead has never been brighter.” It’s “Fast and Furious” meets “Young Guns,” with great trial lawyers practicing at a very high creative level to find – and win – claims almost always based in financial chicanery. The firm found its niche working with trustees, liquidators, corporations, hedge funds and others from the Cayman Islands to New York and well beyond, who are appreciative of the craft Reid Collins puts into mining busted companies and other investment vehicles to return something to stakeholders. Often as not, they find mismanagement, overinflated projections and every insider financial practice between. Reid Collins’ secret? The art of creative necessity, a hard-won sixth sense for finding claims other lawyers wouldn’t, and an urgent will to win. The firm’s founding partners left their prior firm because they wanted to pursue contingent-fee cases exclusively, walking out with no idea if they had a chance. But they had each other, tenacity, and a desire to build a different type of firm that could slag for valuable claims other litigators wouldn’t touch. Their timing, in the throes of the financial collapse, could not have been better.
The Modern Law Firm. Built For Clients. $45 billion in recoveries. Insightful enough to take the long view. Nimble enough to take on everything in our path.
Selendy & Gay PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Tel: 212 390 9000 Fax: 212 390 9399 www.selendygay.com
pockets of the lawyers and staff in a unique compensation structure that rewards teamwork while forgoing debt and paying for risk, hard work and brilliance.
Diamonds in the Rough
Bill Reid
The bonds formed in the battle for the future are strong, among the firm’s founders, partners and their clients – those who trusted the fledgling firm with their precious claims. “Sitting here at the 10-year mark, I would say I’m just extraordinarily thankful for the way that things have turned out,” says Jason Collins, a humble accountant by training, whose father and grandfather were lawyers. “Our achievements have exceeded all expectations from my vantage point.” Lisa Tsai is methodical, unflappable and deadly, trained at Latham before joining Reid in Austin. “It’s funny to just think about how much we’ve done in those ten years. I guess you could always say that about life, but I never would have dreamed about what we have been able to do actually. It’s incredible,” she says. Tsai hoped success would mean “If we could make enough to pay our bills and have offices with a long-term lease instead of a sub-lease. With a normal conference table, that seemed successful to me at the time.” They started out with desks built of boxes and doors. And while they now have a real conference table, their financial rewards go into the 40
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Founder William T. Reid IV is a bit of a Bugatti trapped in a human’s body. His only speed is fast and his chosen path head on. He loves winning cases others won’t touch and taking on institutional defendants that often cow others. Born and raised in New York to a Marine who became a Trappist Monk before marrying a former Nun, Reid has a full-impact take on life and its possibilities. Reid started his career as an accountant before enrolling at St. John’s law school in Queens. He hated his second-year clerkship at Rogers & Wells in New York. “I didn’t want to be a bag carrier and do work that someone else would take credit for. I wanted to do it myself,” he says. His focus clarified in Texas, with Judge Garza and his corps of former clerks. “I realized that there was a whole other world out there beyond New York. In many ways I credit Judge Garza with totally changing my life. I had never been anywhere in the South and I thought I was going to ride around on a horse all weekend. And wear cowboy hats and do whatever nonsense you thought Texans did. And when I realized that there was a whole different approach to everything, it changed my life.” Like thousands of lawyers who fundamentally loathe Big Law, it took a minute to find his path and gather the team and expertise to walk away. He’s a planner, this one. Reid joined the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Western District of Texas in 1997, after a couple years at Hughes & Luce, winning 24 trials and losing one during a threeyear stint. He took those talents to Diamond McCarthy, a firm founded by former Hughes & Luce partners. In a decade, Reid rose to being the second-highest revenue generator; tasted his first real success in plaintiff litigation; laid the foundation for Reid Collins’ Cayman Islands practice; and amassed the team that today is the heart and soul of Reid Collins, including Collins, Tsai, Eric Madden, Joshua Bruckerhoff, Craig Boneau, Nate Palmer and Rachel Fleishman. Reid joined Diamond McCarthy on June 1, 2000, and that afternoon punched another
CHICAGO’S PREMIER PLAINTIFFS’ PERSONAL INJURY FIRM
AN UNPRECEDENTED
Joseph W. Balesteri
Thomas M. Power
Devon C. Bruce
Larry R. Rogers
1ST PLACE FINISHES
Kathryn L. Conway
Larry R. Rogers, Jr.
For the past ten years, Power Rogers
Sean M. Houlihan
Carolyn Daley Scott
& Smith has been ranked the #1
Brian LaCien
Thomas G. Siracusa
Law Firm in Illinois in the Chicago
James Power
Todd A. Smith
Joseph A. Power, Jr.
Jonathan M. Thomas
10 CONSECUTIVE
Lawyer Annual Settlement Survey.
Over $4 billion recovered in
verdicts & settlements since inception
Best Law Firms 2019
The Nation’s Top Litigators
312.236.9381 // 70 West Madison | 55th Floor | Chicago, Illinois 60602 // www.PRSLAW.com
Jason Collins
THEY STARTED OUT WITH DESKS BUILT OF BOXES AND DOORS. AND WHILE THEY NOW HAVE A REAL CONFERENCE TABLE, THEIR FINANCIAL REWARDS GO INTO THE POCKETS OF THE LAWYERS AND STAFF IN A UNIQUE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE THAT REWARDS TEAMWORK WHILE FORGOING DEBT AND PAYING FOR RISK, HARD WORK AND BRILLIANCE. ticket, this one for the Cayman Islands, finding a jurisdiction that would propel his practice. While today he calls the Caymans practice perhaps more glamour than lucre, the perch he and Collins gained in the world’s fifth-largest financial center and with its powerful liquidators is estimable. As Reid was building a plaintiff financial practice packed with cases involving offshore duplicity, Madden began assembling an onshore practice through a network of national bankruptcy trustees. Offshore or on, they were learning the legal equivalent of deep mining, going beyond the standard assessment of a case as taught in big firms everywhere, where the calculation is 42
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
what can be lost – not what can be won. They flipped that equation. Case in point, Reid, Tsai and Madden’s unlikely 2005 victory on behalf of a diffident Harvard-educated lawyer named Bruce Bakerman against Sidney Frank Importing Co., which with its wholly owned subsidiary, Grey Goose Bottling, controlled all rights to the Goose. Bakerman was assistant general counsel for Sidney Frank, and held 10 percent equity in Grey Goose but none in Sidney Frank. Sidney Frank’s CEO negotiated a $2.5B sale to Bacardi, but decided to allocate all but $19M to Sidney Frank and kept Bakerman in the dark to render worthless his 10 percent ownership. Eventually, Frank’s CEO came clean to Bakerman, who inquired how the $2.5 billion in proceeds would be divided between the two Grey Goose arms. Bakerman was given three options: One, a million dollars and you sign the consent; two, $700K and you sign the consent and keep your $300K-a-year job; or three, if you refuse to sign the consent, then disbarment, imprisonment and no money. In the 30 minutes he was given to decide, Bakerman chose door number two, knowing his responsibilities to his elderly mother. He cashed the $700K check. Bakerman knew lots of lawyers, all of whom turned down his claim because he cashed the check and signed the consent. But then he was referred to Reid. The team vetted the case for two weeks to find an escape from the release. Madden uncovered the Delaware doctrine of “entire fairness”: even if a consenting shareholder has consented to a transaction and received the benefits of it, if objectively it’s not entirely fair – in both process and substance – then the beneficiary of the unfair transaction can be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Delaware Chancellor William Chandler found there had been no process and the allocation of $19M in equity in a $2.5B deal to Grey Goose – which owned, among other things, the recipe and primary manufacturing facility in France – to be ludicrous. Reid and Madden forged a settlement that allowed Bakerman to never work again. The Reid Collins’ cut? Substantial. Very substantial. “Entire fairness is one of our many roads to riches,” says Reid. “We changed Bruce Bakerman’s life. For us personally, it was very rewarding because we were the young equity partners and it was a big fee.”
90%
of the
AmLaw 100 have worked with
Burford.
Here’s why: •
We have more capital and more capacity to finance law
•
Our respected team includes 50+ lawyers who add strategic value over the life of an investment relationship
•
We’re publicly traded and trusted by lawyers for our consummate professionalism, ethical standards and careful approach to sensitive matters
•
We’re focused on meeting our clients’ unique needs with competitively priced solutions
Leading companies, firms and top litigation boutiques have sought funding from Burford. What are you waiting for?
Greg McPolin Managing Director gmcpolin@burfordcapital.com (212) 235-6820 burfordcapital.com
Getting the Plane Off the Ground Great cases aside, in late 2009 Reid and his team were frustrated with the way the top-heavy Diamond McCarthy was managed, including that it financed its operations with debt. “When he asked me to increase the line of credit, I basically refused. And he said, ‘Well, then you can leave.’ Which I didn’t love,” Reid recalls.
Rachel Fleishman
“If you find a lawyer who in their 30s generates work on any meaningful level, half a million a year or whatever, and has clients that come to that lawyer, wants to hire them in their 30s, you can bank on the fact that they are worth their weight in gold,” says Reid. “I saw that gold in Collins, Tsai, and Madden.” The reality of starting your own law firm is ugly. It’s only that staying at a firm where you see no future is worse. Reid, Collins and Tsai linked arms and jumped. “There was just that huge leap of faith, stepping off into the unknown,” says Collins. Where will the clients come from, will they respond to our inquiries, will they continue on with the relationship with us independent of our prior group, and then will we be able to sustain that moving forward? “I am extraordinarily thankful 44
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
for the way that things unfolded, and I think there were a number of people along the way that put their trust and confidence in us who were game changers for us.” And, trust us, for folks who put it all on the line, there is no loyalty quite like that forged in the crucible of fear and belief. Early help keeping the lights on came from Ron Glass of Glass Rattner, who was trustee for a bankrupt enterprise that had persuaded investors to invest in the rehabilitation and construction of churches. In fact, the principals used the money for their own unholy private real estate development projects. Glass hired the fledging firm, which formulated claims against the former directors and officers of Cornerstone, drafting complaints, engaging in pre-suit negotiation with the former officers, the accountants, the lawyers, and resolving those cases. “The success that we had in that case was a huge shot in the arm in terms of launching us, not only financially giving us what we needed in those early days, along with other cases,” says Collins. It also provided a valuable calling card that maybe this Reid Collins firm might be on to something. The early days were the Wild Wild West, with the firm’s junior partners – Bruckerhoff, Palmer, Greg Schwegmann and Craig Boneau – spending hours digging through claims to find something – anything – they could settle for $10, they recall. “The reality is that we weren’t sorting the good cases from bad,” says Bruckerhoff. “There were no good cases.” But they would spend day after day applying their training and skill sifting for what other lawyers had missed. “The way the firm got started, to get off the ground in the very beginning, was to take a really bad case and turn it into money.” They muscled through claims of inflated appraisals of bad watercolor paintings and Winnie the Pooh memorabilia while flying back and forth to meet with Colombian Governors. But none ever questioned the risk. “Being tied to Lisa and Bill and Jason didn’t seem risky to me,” says Boneau. “As long as you’re attached to that ship that ship is always going to launch.” Reid himself was going through the worst two years of his life while trying to “get the plane off the ground.” His dad and sister died, his nanny was assassinated and he and his wife had three kids in diapers.
And a new law firm. And no hourly cases. But within 90 days, an unlikely angel in the burly form of Scott Ellington appeared, tracking down Reid and Collins in Dubai in the middle of the night. Start-up life, they were sharing a room. Ellington’s client, Highland Capital, had a huge claim for the failed Lake Las Vegas development and wanted to give it to Reid Collins. The future opened wide. The Lake Las Vegas case is consummate Reid Collins. Anchored by Reid and Tsai, the firm found claims against Credit Suisse for vastly overinflating the land valuation and appraisal for the luxury development outside Las Vegas – the only one of 31 investors in the project to do so. In June 2007, Highland funds lent $250M to the $540M project based on an independent appraisal by CBRE valuing the property at $891M. When the project collapsed in a smoldering bankrupt heap a year later, it was assessed at $23M. Reid and Tsai knew their client had been done wrong, but pinning it to Credit Suisse was another matter. They first filed suit against CBRE for its appraisal of the land, settling that and gaining valuable discovery, revealing Credit Suisse’s improper interaction with the appraiser. When the Reid Collins team took Credit Suisse to court, they won an astonishing $287M judgment. In the years since then, Credit Suisse has fought like the dickens, and will get yet another review in early January. The total tally with interest is more than $390M. Reid Collins has a substantial success fee. The Credit Suisse win bolstered the firm’s belief in itself and its position in the marketplace. It also underscored an approach the firm’s lawyers – most of whom sit together in offices in hills outside Austin – have used again and again. Sit down and find claims others missed, bring them at an arrangement that is lucrative for the firm – and win. The firm has dozens of cases that exemplify the Reid Collins philosophy, none perhaps as high-profile as their U.S. Supreme Court victory in Merit, limiting the safe harbor in bankruptcy, and opening up recovery for investors. True to form, in 2011 Reid, Bruckerhoff and Schwegmann were handed a pile of documents detailing the last harness-racing license in Pennsylvania and a wire transfer from Credit Suisse in the Caymans and told to write a memo on whether they could bring fraudulent transfer claims on behalf of a
litigation trustee of a bankrupt racetrack. They had just two weeks because so many other firms had passed. And on their rickety desks, they found the theory to restrict the safe harbor that no other lawyers had. “Not to toot our own horn, but we were like fourth-year attorneys and we just solved what no one else had solved for 25 years,” says Bruckerhoff. That ruling is a platinum calling card for the firm, and Madden, in particular, who leads the firm’s bankruptcy litigation practice. A far cry from the firm’s early days, Madden is known nationwide by trustees and frequently is one of the first lawyers called when things go South. And given high expectations that the economy is going South, there are likely boom times ahead for Reid Collins, which is already sitting on a small mountain of fraudulent transfer claims.
Lessons Learned Also underscoring the firm’s philosophy is another lesson from Judge Garza: always look for the equities. To Reid, he was a mentor, a grandfather. “And he taught me that what mattered more to judges were the equities,” he says. While many judges are rigid on the law, most are still persuaded by equities. “We here focus on the equities. We try to play them up. And we don’t generally take cases where we don’t like the equities.” That resonates with Tsai and the other partners. “It’s really easy, depending on where you land, to forget what is at the core of this profession. Think about what a privilege it is to represent somebody else and be their advocate on something that matters to them,” she says. It’s also easy to forget in a time of 10,000-lawyer “partnerships” that some real ones still exist. That there are lawyers out there – sitting in offices around the corner – who think about clients and innovative legal theories at 10 p.m. and text their partner and find a way to get justice for their client. “You cannot replace a relationship that grows from our more innocent phase in our careers. You’ll see, and this is sort of the sadder more tragic part of law practice, the partners starting to have conflicts. A lot of times the friction develops because you really are just in a business partnership,” says Tsai. “And here, there’s a
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
45
FOR ALL THE FIRM’S SUCCESS, IT MAY BE MOST STRIKING THAT WHAT THE FIRM’S ATTORNEYS MOST CHERISH IS THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.
Eric Madden
sweeter nature to our relationship. It grew from when Jason and I were just some of the youngest tenured associates, and Bill was our mentor, to then becoming partners together at a later stage, and then building something together.” Together, Reid, Collins and Tsai are like the three bears. Except, of course, they are not bears. Collins, the pragmatist, will feel down about a case, and spend an hour with Reid and become a believer again. Tsai is the balance, using skills enhanced only by being a mother of four boys to keep everyone focused on the next step. There are at least two remarkable things about the crew: They fight like family and make money like partners. Their blow-ups are intimate and in your face because the bond of trust is made of steel. As important, that same level of engagement is felt by the next group of already quite accomplished partners who worry about letting the founders down if they fail to find that gold in the river. Or on that island, Grand Cayman, to be specific. It’s a balmy day as Reid lands on Grand Cayman to take an expected victory lap against a competitor, Reed Smith, in court the next morn46
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
ing. But first there are friends to see. So many friends over drinks and dinner, including one of the Cayman legends of the early days, when planes would fly overhead or boats would come near shore, toss bags of money on the sand and accountants would scurry out to retrieve – and invest – the lucre. It’s a big business with quite the furry underbelly. Late last year, Reid and Bruckerhoff filed a $500M malpractice suit against Reed Smith on behalf of Cayman Islands liquidators of the Bear Stearns funds for blowing a statute of limitations on filing claims against underwriters and ratings agencies related to reverse mortgage-backed securities. According to the complaint, Reed Smith sat on the claims for two years before the statute ran, recognizing in an internal email “the limitations will have run by the time we file this complaint in July 2013.” “Reed Smith’s haphazard representation of the Bear Stearns Funds caused the funds to lose claims worth over a billion dollars – claims against defendants who unquestionably committed the fraud that gave rise to those claims and had the financial wherewithal to pay the full amount of the judgment the Bear Stearns Funds would have obtained,” Reid wrote in the complaint. The settlement amount is confidential, but Reid and crew had some excellent wine over lunch with friends before boarding the next plane out. It was a good day, and Reid is reflective about the firm he and his partners founded, starting with eight lawyers, which today number 34. “In the next 10 weeks, I have three dispositive hearings and the Credit Suisse appeal, which total over $3.7 billion in damages sought. In addition, we have a docket of several billion dollars more,” he says. “There is no end in sight.” It’s really just the beginning for Reid Collins, but such a long way from that first leap of faith that landed Reid his clerkship with Judge Garza. For all the firm’s success – financially and in taking on claims others wouldn’t – it may be most striking that what the firm’s attorneys most cherish is their relationships. “It is really rewarding to come to work every day to work with an incredible team of people who I respect and love with the knowledge that we are building something truly remarkable – a partnership of some of the best plaintiffs’ lawyers in the country who I can also count as my closest friends,” says Reid.
FOR US THERE ARE NO SURPRISES With almost 300 years of combined legal experience, our personal injury lawyers have seen the defense playbook. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY AND SCHOENBERGER congratulates shareholders MICHAEL A. KELLY, RICHARD H. SCHOENBERGER and DORIS CHENG for their selection to The Lawdragon 500. Each of these stalwarts has helped deliver justice to those in need with integrity, skill and unflagging determination. Their successes in the past year have come before State and Federal judicial officers, juries and arbitrators. Each has elevated the reputation of the profession in the public eye. In her service as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco, Ms. Cheng stewarded both the Justice and Diversity Center and BASF, while developing and administering two highly acclaimed “Women In Trial” boot camps, training more than 100 participants in courtroom advocacy. Mr. Schoenberger’s trial skills were well displayed with a record-setting jury verdict in Central California and his volunteer teaching was on display at multiple programs sponsored by NITA for whom he serves as Hanley Advanced Trial Skills Program Director. Mr. Kelly led the fight on behalf of residents of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Butte counties who sustained injury, property loss and homelessness as a result of the negligence of Northern California’s largest utility, PG&E, which caused the devastating 2017 and 2018 wildfires. In addition, he travelled to Belfast, Northern Ireland to direct the 25th Anniversary Queens College Solicitor Advocacy Training and was a featured speaker at the American Association of Justice’s annual meeting in San Diego. It is through the efforts of these lawyers and their equally skilled colleagues that the Walkup firm is acknowledged as a “top tier” firm nationally and locally by U.S. News. Our mass tort team is involved in litigation arising from wildfires, defective consumer products, medical devices and cancercausing pesticides. Firm members have achieved recognition for their skill and achievement with election to membership and leadership in preeminent organizations including the Inner Circle of Advocates, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers and The Summit Council. Walkup attorneys are active in the community working with the homeless and disadvantaged and they teach, lecture and mentor other lawyers locally and across the country. We salute our colleagues selected for membership this year.
6 5 0 C A L I F O R N I A S T R E E T, S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 8 P H : 4 1 5 . 8 8 9 . 2 9 1 9 • FA X : 4 1 5 . 3 9 1 . 6 9 6 5 W W W.W A L K U P L A W O F F I C E . C O M
STANDING BY KATRINA DEWEY
Photo by Laura Barisonzi From left to right: Darin McAtee, Damaris Hernรกndez, Peter Barbur, Julie North and Antony Ryan
TALL
Cravath’s Pursuit of the Long Arc of Justice Has Defined the Firm for More Than 200 Years.
IF
a tale of a nation is the story of its people, the work of its lawyers is the framing of its hopes and the reconciliation of its reality. Accessible sidewalks in Manhattan to families reunited in El Paso, Texas. Release and remuneration for the wrongly convicted in New York to justice for those victimized while incarcerated in its notorious Rikers Island facilities. The right of LGBTQ couples to serve as foster parents in South Carolina to equal employment for firefighters in Birmingham. You want to talk legacy? For 200 years while handling the world’s most complex deals and vexing lawsuits, Cravath lawyers have given their time for those causes and many, many more. Long before the firm officially opened its doors in 1819, its attorneys were in court defending individuals who needed a lawyer but were unable to afford one. Their plight foretold those of tens of thousands who would turn to Cravath lawyers in their darkest hour. It started by 1803, with founder Elijah Miller defending the first Native American man tried for murdering a white man in New York state. Then, in 1846, William Freeman, an African-American man who had been abused in prison, was charged with breaking into a house and killing four people. Cravath founder William Henry Seward defended him, pleading with the jury, “He is still your brother, and mine.” The case formed the basis of the insanity defense and laid the foundation for Cravath’s decades-long battle for criminal justice reform and civil rights – which continues today. Not many lawyers have seen a client gain justice and celebrate with cartwheels in the rain. Darin McAtee and Antony Ryan have. Kareem Bellamy was convicted of murdering a friend, James Abbott Jr., in 1995. He never stopped protesting his innocence – crying out “I didn’t do it” as each of the 12 jurors affirmed their guilty vote and, as he was led from the courtroom, apologizing to Abbott’s mother, “Ma’am, I didn’t kill your son.” From prison, Bellamy wrote hundreds of letters to lawyers pleading for help. In 2004, McAtee and Ryan signed on. They brought a post-conviction challenge, and won Bellamy’s release after 14 years in prison based on a mistaken eyewitness identification. “He’s got his life back,” says Ryan. Justice for one man, and the rebalancing of those infinite scales.
50
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
“Almost every single subject important to humankind, there’s been some Cravath associate or partner who that’s the cause they’re interested in, and that’s the one they want to champion,” says McAtee, who has won important battles for the disabled, including hearing-impaired cops and accessible sidewalks throughout New York City. His paying clients include NCR for which he advocates environmental litigation and Colgate-Palmolive in product liability matters. But it all started with pro bono, and a hearing in which he sought an order of protection for a client of Her Justice, which helps victims of domestic violence. “I went in there, all eager and I put on a big display about how bad this guy had been and all the things he had done to her and all the evidence we had and I had photographs and all kinds of hospital records. I had all this in front of the judge and the judge turned to the abuser and said, ‘All right, your turn, sir. Mr. McAtee just laid all this out, what’s your response?’” And the man responded, “May the Lord help me, all of it is true.” Today, Cravath’s reach exceeds 500 lawyers – among the world’s best-trained and most admired legal corps – creating substantial amplitude for the Cravath legacy. As with all Cravath clients, the focus is persistently on finding the right answer, rather than merely the most expedient or efficient. “We have lots of resources and we bring those resources to bear on issues, whether it’s systemic or whether it’s an individual,” says Julie North. “Those resources are paired with passionate people who will stay up day in and day out until they think that they have got the best argument that they can make in aid of whatever the cause that they happen to be working towards.” North knows a thing or two about tough court battles, having defended the outside directors of Massey Energy Company following the deadly explosion of the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, and Credit Suisse following the 2008 financial collapse. She considers the hardest case she’s ever handled to be her pro bono lawsuit on behalf of foster care children in New York City. “It is, without question, the hardest thing I have done in my 30 years as a lawyer here,” she says. And while she attributes that mostly to politics involved in the foster care infrastructure, her leadership of litigation against the city and state of New York has unquestionably required extreme tenacity. She had represented indigent
individuals pro bono for 10 years, and was asked by an ACLU contact if she would consider taking on the culture of entrenchment in New York foster care. She filed suit in July 2015 against the Administration for Children’s Services and the Office of Children and Family Services. After four years of battles with the city and state, she persuaded the court to allow discovery to establish a record on which she could seek class certification, for which she refiled last year. “It’s important to me to do things that are going to make a difference in our own backyard, in our own city,” says North. “It’s an embarrassment that New York City runs a foster care system in the
Ryan and the Cravath lawyers have become experts in the world of criminal justice, which in New York City means Rikers Island, the city’s answer to Alcatraz; it’s now slated to close by 2026. Recently, associate Brittany Sukiennek won a settlement for “Jane Doe,” who was raped by a corrections officer while held in pretrial detention there. “There really have been just horrific stories in recent years,” says Ryan, who worked on the case with Sukiennek and the Legal Aid Society. “I don’t think Rikers is a great place for many people who are there, but the conditions in the women’s facility are particularly poor and there’s a lot of,
Long before the firm officially opened its doors in 1819, its attorneys were in court defending individuals who needed a lawyer but were unable to afford one. Their plight foretold those of tens of thousands who would turn to Cravath lawyers in their darkest hour. way it does. There are too many smart people for us to have kids who languish and are maltreated in foster care in the way they are.” Ryan, the firm’s pro bono partner, also marries a premier private civil litigation caseload with a pro bono one every bit as accomplished. He led a class action against New York State and City agencies seeking pre-release planning and transitional services for parolees with serious mental illness; obtained a writ of mandamus on behalf of a prison inmate, in a decision establishing the legal standard for implied waiver of the psychotherapist patient privilege; and is currently representing eight “juvenile lifers” – individuals sentenced for crimes committed between the ages of 13 and 17 to life incarceration – in a class action challenging the Parole Board’s decisionmaking. The eight individuals Cravath represents have all been released and the firm is working to obtain reform systemically. “The only way they get out is if they get paroled,” says Ryan. “So we’re trying to apply some recent cases about how juveniles are different from adults in terms of impetuosity, immaturity, being vulnerable to peer pressure and so forth. They need a meaningful opportunity to get parole if they can demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation.”
as I understand, abuse of power that goes on at various times by the corrections officers there and obviously egregious situations like this of rape.” In few areas has the desire to help been seen more pointedly in recent years than immigration. The rising number of deportations, and their circumstances – especially the plight of children – have ignited passions often kept under the surface in the legal community. North recalls a recent team meeting she was leading for a paying client when she noticed an attorney who seemed distracted. “Why do you look so down?” she asked. The attorney responded, “Honestly, it’s the decision made last night with respect to the factors that one can consider regarding whether or not you’re within a group that is going to get asylum or at least meet one of the conditions.” North responded, “Let’s find out who else has been working on these matters across the country, including the ACLU. We ought to be able to get a group of people together to talk about what is the best strategy to address this. You’re not alone.” Ryan has seen a huge uptick in associates interested in working on immigration cases. The firm has formed relationships with organizations, some working at the border, where Cravath is
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
51
helping detainees. In other cases, the firm represents people detained at the Southern border who have been moved to jail in Albany County. “Candidly, I didn’t think about immigration law when I was in law school. Now we are seeing asylum cases from all over the world,” says Ryan. The firm has also paired with client American Express, joining firm associates and in-house counsel to represent indigent immigrants pro bono. “It’s the first time I’ve seen that sort of cross pollination with paying clients on pro bono cases,” says Peter Barbur, a longstanding advisor to AmEx as well as countless other private clients and a premier civil rights litigator. Barbur worked in public interest before attending NYU Law School as a Root-Tilden scholar. He’s worked extensively on civil rights litigation, especially to protect LGBTQ rights. He battled the Boy Scouts’ discriminatory policies, and while battles were lost, a war – and dignity – was won. He’s worked to win marriage equality and for recognition that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Coalition claims the state is violating the Establishment Clause. Thinking of a recent 50th anniversary commemoration of Stonewall and the progress of civil rights recognition since, Barbur is reflective. “We definitely seem to be moving back on a lot of Civil Rights issues, which is unfortunate. But hopefully it’s just a period of time, and things will swing back into the right direction eventually.” Cravath has lived the long arc of justice. And perhaps no single case better explains the firm’s commitment and unique contributions than its fight for the civil rights of African American and female firefighters and police officers in Birmingham, Ala. In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. called Birmingham, “probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States,” with no black police officers, firefighters, bus drivers or bank tellers. In the 1970s, the U.S., NAACP and a class of African American municipal employees filed suit against Birmingham and its Personnel Board claiming race and sex discrimination. The plaintiffs won at trial in 1976,
In 1846, William Freeman, an African-American man who had been abused in prison, was charged with breaking into a house and killing four people. Cravath founder William Henry Seward defended him, pleading with the jury, “He is still your brother, and mine.” The case formed the basis of the insanity defense and laid the foundation for Cravath’s decades-long battle for criminal justice reform and civil rights – which continues today. Recently, Barbur filed suit on behalf of Eden Rogers and Brandy Welch, a married lesbian couple who want to become foster parents in South Carolina. The couple are parents to two daughters and want to help more children. However, South Carolina’s largest foster care agency, Miracle Hill Ministries, turned them away for failing to meet its religious criteria, which excludes all faiths but evangelical Christians as well as all LGBTQ couples of any faith. Miracle Hill denied the couples’ application after the federal Health & Human Services – which funds foster care agencies – provided a waiver allowing it to discriminate. The lawsuit, brought by Lambda, the ACLU and South Carolina Equality 52
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
with a finding the firefighter and police-officer entrance exams impermissibly discriminated against African-Americans. The city then entered a Consent Decree, providing goals that it would need to achieve for oversight to be lifted. In the late 1980s Robert Joffe may have seemed to some an unlikely champion for African-American firefighters in Birmingham. However the star litigator for companies like Time Warner and IBM was also a passionate advocate for public interest, having served two years working on legal reform in Malawi early in his career. In 1989, he argued in the U.S. Supreme Court against an attempt by white firefighters to claim the Consent Decree created reverse discrimination.
In few areas has the desire to help been seen more pointedly in recent years than immigration. The rising number of deportations, and their circumstances – especially the plight of children – have ignited passions often kept under the surface in the legal community. Now entering its fifth decade, the case has been handled by Joffe, who later became the firm’s first litigator to serve as presiding partner; he passed away in 2010. Rowan Wilson, another star litigator, picked up the baton in 1990 and oversaw Birmingham for 17 years before becoming a judge. It’s now in the hands of Damaris Hernández. So obstinate has been the city’s progress, that in 2010, a court emphasized that the consent decree was not “a security blanket to be clung to, but a badge of shame, a monument to the [Personnel] Board’s past and present failure to treat all candidates in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.” “In the last 20 years, we’ve had two trials, 50 depositions, multiple briefs from district court briefs to appeal briefs,” says Hernández. To say the case has provided an abundance of training opportunities for associates is like saying the Titanic was a boat. But with a difference. Rather than being brought down by intransigence and obstinance, Birmingham symbolizes what a team of dedicated lawyers can do when failure is not an option. Hernández knows something about that. Raised by her Puerto Rican parents in East New York, Brooklyn, she spent many hours helping out in the family’s bodega. The summer before her senior year of high school her father suddenly passed away, and while she was a sophomore at Harvard College her mom lost the bodega. Hernández took a leave to support her family before moving them all with her to Cambridge two years later. She won admission to NYU Law School and an AnBryce scholarship intended to clear a new path to help minorities and others enter the legal profession. She nearly passed on a chance to interview at the firm for fears she would be seen as a sellout. And when the firm’s then-presiding partner and top litigator Evan Chesler interviewed her, he remarked that
it looked like she wanted to do public interest. “Like, ‘Why are you here, basically?’” she recalls thinking, and responded, “‘I need to feed my family. You call yourself the best firm at training people, and when I go save the world, I know who I’m saving it against.’ Probably not the right answers during an interview.” But she was spot on. And especially to Chesler, himself a blue-collar kid from the Bronx who sold hot dogs at Yankee Stadium; he’s now the firm’s first Chairman. Like her partners, Hernández today has a first-rate private litigation roster on behalf of American Express, the Republic of Argentina and PG&E alongside her public interest work. “To me, the Birmingham suit shows the meaningful, impactful and proud tradition we have here of doing pro bono. And that not only do we take on meaningful work, we will see it to the end,” says Hernández. She’s hopeful Birmingham will draw to a close by the end of 2020. As the first in her family to graduate college, and Cravath’s first Latina partner, she’s sure every day will be the day the firm realizes she doesn’t belong. Of course, she does. And because of her voice and those of other committed lawyers for more than 200 years, there is a law firm with an enduring legacy that provides wisdom and perseverance to address the issues of today and tomorrow. “When I went to law school, I thought that if you needed a lawyer, you were either locked up, or not getting services,” says Hernández. “I didn’t realize that Cravath existed. I thought that the only way you could help your community, and give them a voice was on an individual case-by-case basis. “Having been at Cravath, I realize there’s a lot more I can do with my law degree and my resources. Being an attorney is a privileged position. It’s our obligation to give back. I want to do as much as I can as best I can because we’re able to help people’s lives.”
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
53
REVENGE O F TH E
HATCHLINGS
PHOTO OF KALPANA SRINIVASAN AND MAX TRIBBLE BY AMY CANTRELL.
TH I S I S T HE S T OR Y OF HOW T O L O S E N E A R L Y A B I L L I O N DOLLARS IN A L A WS UIT T H A T S H O U L D N E V E R H A V E B E E N FI LE D. AND HOW A C OUNT E R C L A I M B E C A M E T H E L A R G E S T JURY V E R DIC T IN T HE ILLUSTRIOUS HIS T OR Y IT I S A L S O A M A N U A L F O R D I S R U P T O RS OF SUSM A N G ODFR EY. ON H O W T O N O T G E T F * * * * D I N C O U RT BY THE DISRUPTED. BY KATRINA DEWEY BEWARE
of Emails from Dinosaurs It sounds obvious. But in the new world of the disruptors and the disrupted, one must always know in which camp one sits. Easy to say, as when you’re a disruptor hunger is intense, and validation – and cash, dear God, please cash – from the disrupted is so very tempting. So, on Dec. 3, 2013, when the founders of the recently conceived HouseCanary received an email from the chief appraiser of Title Source – the nation’s largest independent company offering title insurance, valuations and closing services – saying they should talk, one can imagine a few rounds of tequila were had at HouseCanary. They were on their way. Throughout the housing collapse that gripped the nation beginning in 2008, former Boston Consulting Group partner Jeremy Sicklick had pondered the problem of unreliable real estate appraisal data. His quest had taken him to Chris Stroud, a brilliant University of Texas computer scientist, who had spent a decade crunching data to create reliable predictive models. This modeling could then be applied to home resale prices for the $35-trillion housing market, which Sicklick did when he connected with Stroud. The real estate appraisal software HouseCanary created includes a secret algorithm, an automated valuation model (AVM) that swiftly predicts property values, risks and expected changes by harnessing millions of data points about individual homes. Automation of appraisals is a vast step forward in the industry,
which has traditionally relied on in-home inspections and laborious manual processes that make it hard to capture key metrics that can predict valuation shifts. Within three days of that December email, HouseCanary and TSI became engaged – in a non-exclusive but meaningful way. They entered into the first of two agreements: a stringent Non-Disclosure Agreement binding Title Source and its affiliates including Quicken Loans, the largest home mortgage company in the U.S. The companies agreed not to reverse engineer HouseCanary’s models or their output, including AVMs and also agreed to not use HouseCanary’s confidential information or trade secrets to create new products. For HouseCanary, the deal offered the possibility of access to a trove of appraisal data generated by TSI appraisers, allowing it to refine its analytics. And, of course, the lure of cash. HouseCanary and TSI worked together for a year before entering into a second agreement, in January 2015: a Master Software License Agreement giving TSI the rights to try out HouseCanary’s proprietary appraisal software called “HouseCanary Appraiser” for free for four months. After that period, TSI agreed to pay HouseCanary up to $30 per appraisal to use the software. The software allowed an appraiser to take an iPad to a house, take pictures and automatically pull up all comparable sales based on underlying analytics. “The underlying valuation technology is really what has always set HouseCanary apart and what made them very desirable for this big title appraisal company to work with,” says Susman Godfrey partner Kalpana Srinivasan, who
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
55
would come to be an expert with her partner Max Tribble in all things AVM. The NDA was incorporated into the licensing agreement. And, for the next 10 months there was a lot of talk - but no cash – even after the four-month window to try out the product passed. But during this time, TSI began asking for more detailed information about the AVM, while assuring HouseCanary it wasn’t developing its own. In November 2015, TSI and HouseCanary amended the Master Software License Agreement, again incorporating the NDA, giving TSI yet more testing time and providing a flatfee for use of the appraisal application. It also added licensing rights for HouseCanary’s AVM so, among other things, Quicken Loans’ bankers could access it for home valuation discussions. TSI later proposed a re-trade of the deal, retroactively getting rid of many restrictions on derivative products – and offering 80 percent less than the original contract price. “It just made no sense and it definitely set off some flags,” says Srinivasan. “Like, “Why are you trying to undo these restrictions we’ve always had?’ And so there started to be this feeling like, ‘They must be developing something.’”
The Age of Nonperformance, aka Choking Off Funds
In the dinosaur manual for how to capture and eat your prey, there are illustrations of entrepreneur hatchlings with bright, shiny eyes looking longingly upward at the Tyrannosaurus Rex, with a cartoon bubble that says, “Wow, look at how strong and how powerful. And we can work together!” And the T-Rex, to the side says, “Hey Millie, we got another live one here! Shall we starve him first and then eat him, or just eat him right now?” The hungry upstart never, ever performs well enough. That gives the aging, established company grounds to bleed it dry, either killing it outright, or stealing its innovation to effectively kill it or force it to sell for nothing. The disrupted takes what it wants and either 1) does not pay; 2) sues for nonperformance; or 3) both. Because, you know, what the hell. Title Source chose door number three. On April 12, 2016, Title Source sued HouseCanary in Texas state court claiming HouseCanary did not perform under the license agreement and
56
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
IN THE DINOSAUR MANUAL FOR HOW TO CAPTURE AND EAT YOUR PREY, THERE A RE ILLUST RA T IONS OF ENT REPRENEUR HATCHLINGS WITH BRIGHT, SHINY EYES LOOKING LONGINGLY UPWARD AT THE TYRANNOSAURUS REX, WITH A CARTOON BUBBLE THAT SAYS, “WOW, LOOK AT HOW STRONG AND HOW POWERFUL. AND WE CAN WORK TOGETHER!” AND THE T-REX, TO THE SIDE SAYS, “HEY MILLIE, WE GOT ANOTHER LIVE ONE HERE! SHALL WE STARVE HIM FIRST AND THEN EAT HIM , OR JUST EA T HIM RIGHT NOW?” later added a claim that HouseCanary breached the NDA by revealing its confidential licensing agreement with TSI in conjunction with its investment-raising efforts. What TSI omitted in its complaint? That it had hacked HouseCanary’s data, downloaded 150,000 valuation reports with millions of accompanying data points in the months before filing suit, and built its own model behind HouseCanary’s back. “TSI had assured them over and over again that ‘We are not interested in developing our own valuation models, similarity score, complexity score. We don’t have any interest in trying to do that,’” says Tribble. “And at the exact same time they said that – before, during and after – they were doing it all the way along. They were using our data and trying to develop their own model. And they were comparing the output of our model to the output of their model, to see when they varied the inputs how close they could get to replicating, to reverse engineering our automated valuation model. “In our minds, they were like a dinosaur. And they could see that the whole trend in the industry is going away from appraisals that take two weeks and going more towards these valuation models that return values instantly,” says Tribble. When TSI sued, it did so with a vengeance intended to destroy HouseCanary. Sicklick was
TRUSTED PARTNERS. GLOBAL PLACEMENTS. Lippman Jungers LLC is a global legal recruiting firm focusing on top tier partner and practice group placements and new office openings. Collectively, we have placed more than 500 partners and have opened more than 20 offices for law firms in new markets throughout the US, Europe, Asia and Latin America. We partner with firms and candidates nationally and globally. From offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee and New York, our domestic recruiting practice focuses on: California, Chicago and New York, as well as Washington DC and Texas and our international recruiting practice focuses on Greater China and London.
L I P P M A N J U N G E R S L LC • 8 1 8 . 9 0 7 . 5 7 0 0 • W W W. L I P P M A N J U N G E R S . CO M
confronted by a process server at an industry event in New Orleans as he came down the stairs from a presentation on April 14, 2016. TSI didn’t even send the email terminating the contract until April 19. For several weeks after filing suit, TSI continued making requests to the HouseCanary system to download valuation reports, discovery would later show. “They were continuing to download even after they sued us,” says Tribble. “They would also send in requests from fake addresses, but you could tell the addresses came from TSI,” lowering the HouseCanary hit rate below the required 80 percent, added Srinivasan. On the day Sicklick was served in New Orleans, a search was submitted named: “Wiping the vendor wipes the fee.” Dinosaurs never were subtle.
The Hatchlings Strike Back
A funny thing happened on the way to TSI raptor-like pillaging and wiping out the hatchlings. Turns out, the hatchlings knew a big, bad law firm that was quite experienced with the dinosaur racket. While Stroud was a classic academic nerd on whose tech skills an enterprise could be built, Sicklick was a well-connected former banker with deep contacts. So as the months had ground on with no payment from TSI, Sicklick talked to his board. And one board member had prior experience with Tribble and Srinivasan. Susman Godfrey only takes a tiny percent of the cases presented to the partnership, most of which are on contingency. Because the firm typically pays for the cases itself, there is a high bar for potential plaintiffs to cross over. HouseCanary, however, came in as a rare hourly billing case because it started out as a defense side case and was quickly brought in by the enormously respected trial team of Tribble and Srinivasan. On May 9, 2016, Susman Godfrey filed a counterclaim for HouseCanary against TSI claiming breach of contract and fraud. Tribble acknowledges the company would likely have never sued for nonpayment had TSI not sued first – a staggering acknowledgment of the high price exacted by TSI’s approach. In June 2017, HouseCanary added its claim for trade secret misappropriation, based on its sharing of information, even as TSI continued to deny it had developed competing technology.
58
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
The rest of 2017 brought discovery and key battles over source code and other minutiae on which great verdicts live and die. It also brought the addition of a “local” legend, Ricardo Cedillo of Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza. Born in San Buenaventura, Coahuila, Mexico, and raised in San Antonio, Cedillo has tried hundreds of cases and is one of Texas’ most renowned trial lawyers. He became acquainted with Susman Godfrey decades earlier, trying cases as co-counsel with Lee Godfrey, loaning them his conference room in San Antonio and referring cases to each other. So it came as no huge surprise when just before Thanksgiving, Cedillo got a call from Tribble as he was driving to prep a client for a deposition. Cedillo cleared the conflict check on TSI and asked Tribble to send him whatever he needed to parachute in on a very tight fuse. Cedillo also headed to his local Barnes & Noble and bought every “Dummies” book he could find – Machine Learning for Dummies, Regression Analysis for Dummies. “I wasn’t going to build an algorithm or anything but I learned enough to help a jury understand what the experts were talking about,” he says. He also pushed Tribble on the contingency arrangement. “I told him I thought we could hit big, adding that “I’m not always right on these things but I’m never in doubt!” Cedillo said. On Jan. 29, 2018, Judge David A. Canales took the bench in the historic Bexar County Courthouse in downtown San Antonio to start jury selection. Officially, of course, that should have meant meal time for dino. But that’s not how things turned out with this bunch of hatchlings.
It’s Not Easy for a Dinosaur to Hide its Tracks
Returning to our dinosaur manual for entrepreneurs, we’ll now turn to the section on combat. And, while it is true that, in general, dinosaurs have the upper appendage in any such battle due to their size and predatory nature, it is also true that for a smart dino tracker, it’s pretty easy to sneak up on them as they’re taking a break smoking and having a cocktail with the mastodons. And then all that’s left is to deploy the right weapons. In this case, some really smart lawyers, 12 dedicated jurors and a careful judge. And, the humble Cedillo acknowledges, that
KAREN KAPLOWITZ IS HONORED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A TRUSTED ADVISOR TO LAW FIRM PARTNERS ON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
THE NEW ELLIS GROUP IS PROUD TO JOIN AND SALUTES THE
LAWDRAGON 2019
100 LEADING CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS AND CONGRATULATES ALL THE 2019 LAW DRAGONS ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2019
WWW.NEWELLIS.COM
if there’s one thing he knows how to do, it’s how to pick a jury in San Antonio. The team of Tribble, Srinivasan and Cedillo easily worked through dividing up components of the case, assisted by Susman lawyers Matt Behncke, Elisha Barron, Rocco Magni and Bryce Barcelo, alongside Stacy Schulze, a longtime firm paralegal, who has seen it all. The judge also facilitated a full record by allowing any lawyer to make a point without requiring just one lawyer from each team to speak on a particular subject. As the plaintiff, TSI began its case with CEO Jeffrey Eisenshtadt. And the first question TSI counsel from Greenberg Traurig asked was, “How do you feel after hearing that opening?” “I’m angry,” Eisenshtadt answered, “because I’ve heard so many lies and misrepresentations.” “Why did you file this case?” “We filed to stand up for our team members. We call all our employees team members. We filed this case to stand up for our team members. If we had gotten this appraisal software, then our appraisers could have made a lot more money. That’s what we did it for,” Eisenshtadt testified. In its case in chief, TSI offered a variety of explanations for what went wrong – from claiming HouseCanary never provided it an app to “it functions somewhat but it didn’t comply with all the specifications in the contract.” Or, what Max Tribble characterized as “My dog didn’t bite you. You provoked my dog. And I don’t even have a dog.” Cedillo masterfully handled a number of the cross-examinations and explained, “It’s not that I’m that good. It’s that their witnesses were so bad. When a guy flat out lies, and contradicts what he said five minutes ago, and when a guy refuses to agree with you on what is written on a printed page that’s on the screen that the jury is looking at - and the jury is listening to my question and looking at this guy, and their mouth is dropping and they’re shaking their heads and stifling giggles, because this guy won’t agree to basic English and grammar and that a comma separates things in a list – hell, yeah, I know how to make fun of people like that. “What they don’t understand is that the bigger the fish, the more unforgiving people are. They think, ‘Look, wait a minute, you’re head of the company. You’ve got degrees in English. You’ve got business degrees. You’ve got years and years of experience. I mean, come on.’ I was 60
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
able to capitalize on what they were giving us. And they gave us a lot.” The dance of the duplicitous dinosaurs continued when the tables turned to the HouseCanary counterclaim. The HouseCanary team focused on proving that TSI had downloaded more than 150,000 HouseCanary home value reports which came with millions of accompanying data points; had gathered intelligence on the AVM; and had copied wholesale HouseCanary’s data dictionary – which contained key data points and inputs for valuing homes. And despite being specifically prohibited in every agreement from developing its own AVM, TSI had done just that using HouseCanary’s AVM – its centerpiece incorporating vast inputs about individual houses, including number of bedrooms, square footage, number of chimneys – and an algorithm prioritizing which of those is most important in determining the value of a house. Srinivasan presented a document showing that TSI came to HouseCanary and said, “We could really use your help learning how to slice and dice” TSI’s vast historical data, which TSI had been storing with a third party. “They didn’t realize, really until they started working with HouseCanary, how much you could do with that,” says Srinivasan. The HouseCanary lawyers also presented a PowerPoint they had found on the Internet – which had not been turned over by TSI in discovery – from an internal TSI presentation that had been made at a Quicken Loans Technology Conference held in September 2016, entitled “Title Source Automated Valuation Model.” “They had a whole PowerPoint about their own competing valuation model and about what kind of logic they were using,” says Srinivasan. “We thought, ‘Holy cow, this is directly contradictory to every single thing we’ve been told.’” TSI had denied it had any automated valuation model or similarity score or complexity score in discovery, going so far as to produce an empty folder entitled “similarity score” at the source-code review. And they tried to tell the jury, “The fact that it’s empty is consistent with our position that there never was one.’ Even though their main programmer dude testified live at trial, ‘Yes. We had one. I saw it on Ryan Yang’s laptop,’” says Tribble. To underscore their point, they got the audio
from that Quicken Loans presentation and played it at trial. Sad dinosaurs.
No, No, We’re NOT Hiding in the Cabinet!
The combination of the massive downloads; the incriminating emails about pilfering HouseCanary’s data far and wide; the emails about literally copying HouseCanary’s data dictionary - because Dinos had a brain the size of a walnut; and the PowerPoint made an impact on the jury, which seemed to grow wary of TSI’s claims. Take as a case in point TSI’s decision to battle over whether that original NDA had even been signed. TSI counsel showed an unsigned version to their witnesses, who testified they did not sign it. On the night before the last day of trial, however, the HouseCanary team found the fully executed document attached to a document on TSI’s privilege log – and prepared to introduce it as they wrapped up with TSI’s rebuttal witnesses. “We said, ‘We’ve tried to be efficient and respectful of your time. Although that’s been difficult, given the nature of TSI’s assertions in this case and of their witnesses,’” explains Tribble. Tribble says his team asked the jurors to think about how many days the proceedings focused on the NDA, with TSI and their witnesses claiming it was never signed. “Lo and behold, on the final day of trial we find the fully executed agreement,” he says. As the judge was reviewing the documents – including TSI’s pleading asserting there was a valid enforceable NDA as of December 2013 and a TSI motion for a directed pleading that the NDA had never been signed – the rebuttal witness left the courtroom. “They’re like, ‘Oh, we’re not going to call him anymore,’” Srinivasan remembers. And it wasn’t just the witness who left, the in-house counsel and CEO did as well. Two of the witnesses had not even been released by the court. So the HouseCanary team asked the judge to reopen the evidence so they could publish the signed document to the jury. Tribble passed Srinivasan a note: TSI has left the building. Which, as things turned out was not a bad decision. Because as the dinos may have learned from the theory they went extinct when hit by an asteroid, that’s pretty much what was about to
CEDILLO URGED T HE T EA M T O NOT SH Y AWAY FROM PRESENTING ITS LARGE DA M A GES NUM B ER T O WHA T COULD BE ASSUMED TO BE A MODEST SAN ANTONIO JURY. “IF WE’RE ENTITLED TO IT, I WAS VERY CONFIDENT T HA T WE COULD GET THEM TO SEE THAT WE WERE ENTITLED TO IT, AND TO WRITE IN THE BIG NUMBER.” happen. The judge sent the case to the 12-person jury and – despite a very long set of jury instructions – the jury quickly asked a question: Can we award more than $403.2M in punitive damages, and “if so what would be the max amount we can give?” And that is the type of question most lawyers will wait their entire lives for. “We were all real professional poker face. You never know,” says Srinivasan in recalling their internal gasp at what the question could portend. “It could be just one juror ruminating about it.” But it wasn’t. The jury found unanimously that TSI had misappropriated trade secrets, violated the NDA and engaged in fraud by telling HouseCanary it was not developing its own AVM. The jury awarded $201.6M for stealing trade secrets, and double that – $403.2M – as punitive damages for misappropriation. It awarded $33.8M for fraud and double that, $67.6M in punitive damages for fraud. The jury rejected all of TSI’s claims against HouseCanary. Cedillo – who never left San Antonio until he went to Harvard Law School – had urged the team to not shy away from presenting its large damages number to what could be assumed to be a modest San Antonio jury. “If we’re entitled to it, I was very confident that we could get them to see that we were entitled to it, and to write in the big number.” The verdict was the largest in the U.S. for most of 2018, until Mark Lanier won $4.6B from a St. Louis jury for proving talcum powder caused cancer. HouseCanary is the largest verdict in
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
61
Bexar County history, and the largest ever for Susman Godfrey. Srinivasan says the case was a bit of a sleeper on the firm’s docket; the year started with partner Bill Carmody turning in a stellar performance as lead counsel for Uber in its gigantic battle with Waymo, only to have the case settle mid-trial. And, in typical Susman Godfrey fashion, the year turned into a bang-bang of trial activity on plaintiff and defense for what some consider the best trial corps in the U.S. There is little doubt that TSI’s conduct at trial contributed to the huge verdict. “It showed that these people are not playing straight,” Srinivasan says. “Having your witnesses get up there and not fronting the bad documents with them that you know you’re going to see in court, not addressing this bad testimony that, frankly, I don’t even know how you could address it, about these things not existing that plainly existed.” But dinosaurs never learn. Obviously. They’re extinct. And that’s perhaps the footnote on the tale of the hatchlings versus the dinos. Near the end of the trial, on Feb. 23, the Susman-Cedillo team found a press release announcing that Title Source was rebranded to Amrock. “They thought the trial would already be over. The CEO didn’t attend trial that week because he had all these press conferences,” says Tribble. And in the press release, the former TSI announced it was now a valuation analytics company called Amrock. It turned out, TSI had also filed for trademark protection a year earlier. “They had been starting to do that even at the tail end of their relationship with us and never disclosed it,” Srinivasan says. “It turned out this rebranding had been 18 months, two years in the works.” Since the jury’s verdict, there have been motions galore and new lawsuits. Among them, HouseCanary has filed suit against Quicken Loans and other affiliates for its role in ripping off its trade secrets. And, Amrock and Quicken Loans both have recently disclosed they have shut down their competing AVM – the one HouseCanary says is based on its trade secrets. Susman Godfrey and Cedillo also had to return to the Bexar County Courthouse to defend their verdict and pursue HouseCanary’s federal claims against Quicken Loans, this time against a team 62
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
of new lawyers led by Ted Boutrous and Randy Mastro of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. It was an effort the HouseCanary lawyers found to be a little like, “you’re walking in late on this movie,” to put it in the nicest way. Still, the judge – who in late October had entered judgment for nearly $740 million with interest accruing daily – held a hearing on claims of fraud made by alleged whistleblowers. To Cedillo, the effort was pure PR in a world made Trumpian. “This exceeded common sense. It exceeded decency. It was something that I’ve never seen before, and I’m doing this for 40 years now,” he said. He noted too, that the first set of defense dinos were nowhere to be seen. Which, it turns out, was fine as the judge dismissed all TSI’s claims, again. After four days of hearings in December and January, Judge Canales confirmed it. The dinos were dead. At least to him. And so, while it’s not yet a billion-dollar verdict, if it stands up, it’s pretty likely the tally will cross that line. As of mid April 2019, the verdict is closing in on $800M with interest, which accrues at about $100,000 a day. And, one more thing. Max Tribble’s father was a skilled card player, as is Max, who has vivid memories of a night with a suitcase of money, guarding the door and his father’s winnings as a young child in a Vegas hotel room. As luck would have it, a month before trial started – in December 2017 – Susman Godfrey converted the case to a contingency matter. That decision required approval from the entire firm, in its customary manner. HouseCanary was running out of cash and it was becoming hard to prepare for trial on a billable hour basis. The partners approved the conversion, according to managing partner Neal Manne for several reasons. The firm wanted to stretch to help the client, and thought the case presented a good opportunity. “We had a lot of confidence in ourselves and felt the firm should bet on ourselves,” he says. “And also Max has brought home a lot of big wins. And with Kalpana, there was kind of a dream team.” And now the entrepreneur’s manual on defending against dinos has a new conclusion that brings hope to hatchlings everywhere: You may be bigger, you may be stronger, but the right lawyers can level the playing field and kick your ass.
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS IN PR, BRANDING AND CONTENT FOR THE LEGAL SECTOR… … AT Y O U R S E R V I C E
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
LONDON
INFINITEGLOBAL.COM
CHICAGO
POETIC J HOW KELLER LENKNER IS TURNING THE TABLES ON DEFENDANTS
udge William Alsup has presided over legal disputes born and bred from the gristle and grind of Silicon Valley since 1999. From Uber to Google to Oracle, the San Francisco federal judge has watched the need of businesses to scale collide with the interests of those being scaled – and has been called upon to find something called justice. But what happened in his courtroom in December was a new day for the little guy. DoorDash was in the judge’s sights because – like, it seems, most of the new boom-or-bust businesses in the so-called “gig economy” – it had used “contractors” to pick up eggrolls and pepperoni pizzas and deliver them to the masses, without providing the benefits or dignity of treating them as employees. Now 6,000-plus Dashers had hired their own lawyers and called DoorDash’s bluff. “We’re here because your client had an agreement to go to [the American Arbitration Association], and when it came time to pay the fee, you backed out and reneged the agreement,” said Alsup. “Your defense law firm and all the defense law firms have tried for 30 years to keep employment cases out of court. Suddenly, it’s not in your interest anymore, and now you’re wiggling around to find some way to squirm out of the agreement. “I’m a lot older than you,” he said, “and there’s a lot of poetic justice here.” The DoorDash case was classic Keller Lenkner, the two-year-old Chicago plaintiff firm whose founding partners made their name by launching Gerchen Keller Capital - then the world’s largest and fastest growing litigation finance firm - and selling it to Burford Capital for $175M in 2016. More poetry: The sale of GKC fueled a new type of plaintiff firm built on litigating, at significant scale, claims of those who had essentially been left on the sidelines.
64
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Photos by Michelle Nolan For the DoorDash drivers, Keller Lenkner paid their $1.2M in AAA filing fees, while DoorDash refused to pay its share. That sent the parties to Judge Alsup’s courtroom. In early February, he ruled decisively for the drivers in a decision that made headlines across the country: “DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause. No doubt, DoorDash never expected that so many would actually seek arbitration. Instead, in irony upon irony, DoorDash now wishes to
JUSTICE AND SHAKING UP THE PLAINTIFFS’ BAR
BY KATRINA DEWEY
Left to right: Keller Lenkner founding partners Travis Lenkner, Ashley Keller and Adam Gerchen resort to a class-wide lawsuit, the very device it denied to the workers, to avoid its duty to arbitrate. This hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order.” Keller Lenkner’s founders could easily be mistaken for Wall Street executives and white-shoe defense lawyers - with resumes that include Supreme Court clerkships and prior stints at investment banks, hedge funds, and blue-chip companies and law firms (including one that is defense counsel to DoorDash). They saw an opening in the plaintiffs’ lawyer market for original,
creative lawsuits that leverage their financial and legal wherewithal in ways beyond many marketing-savvy law firms. Now, their practice includes identifying societal shifts that impose costs on large numbers of individuals, and how to use existing law to protect those individuals from the fallout. Examples include changes in technology, such as facial recognition and voice-activated digital assistants. “Employers, retailers, and other companies are tracking employees’ fingerprints every time
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
65
they clock in or out or open certain doors, or tracking your face every time you go into certain retail stores, remembering you, knowing you from store to store, from visit to visit,” explains managing partner Travis Lenkner. “In many cases, you don’t know what’s happening until the data is amassed and used for commercial or other purposes for which you never gave your consent,” he says. Amazon’s Echo is a perfect example, says co-founder Ashley Keller, explaining how it works when you ask “Alexa” to play a song, provide the weather or answer more complex questions on topics like medical conditions. “You get the answer, but Amazon is also recording your voice, creating a voiceprint and then sending that to the cloud and having all sorts of people analyze it. And it recognizes you and distinguishes you from your kids, from other people in the house, from your neighbors,
at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, managing appellate strategy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on more than 150 cases each year. Before that, he was an appellate lawyer at Jones Day. He met Keller and Lenkner when all three were Supreme Court law clerks. Ten years later, in 2018, he joined their new law firm as a partner. Nicole Berg worked with the founding partners at Gerchen Keller Capital, before which she was a litigator at Jenner & Block. Prior to law school, she was an options trader for five years in Chicago. In January, she became the first Keller Lenkner associate to be promoted to partnership. “Nicole comes from a mix of disciplines, and she addresses problems and thinks about the world in many of the same ways we do,” says Lenkner. “Our strategy has been to find like-minded and well trained people who come from the rigors and background of the defense bar, but who also are entrepreneurial and see more interesting challenges and greater opportunities on the plaintiffs’ side - including being part of a nimble and aggressive boutique as opposed to a large defense law firm.” Berg was unsurprised that the trio decided to start a plaintiff firm. “Knowing what drives them, opening a plaintiff firm was a pretty natural transition when you see how it’s working,” she said. “They are constantly looking to see how they can do something different from how everyone else is doing it.” All three founders are enjoying the shift to the plaintiffs’ side, and defying the presumption that Big Law and defense-side practices are the most desirable path. “There are certainly some people at big firms who have a philosophical disposition that they will only represent clients on the defense side - who think they’re on the side of the angels,” says Keller. “By and large, though, people realize that sometimes plaintiffs should win and sometimes defendants should win. For those people, who I think are actually in the majority, our firm offers a more attractive value proposition in terms of intellectual brain food and satisfying the reasons you went to law school. “In some ways, it’s easier to be a defense lawyer. You’re reacting to what someone else has done and you have lots of ways to win. If you
IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, THE FIRM HAS MOVED TO THE FOREFRONT OF LITIGATION, FROM THE NATIONWIDE OPIOID EPIDEMIC TO WHOLESALE ASSAULTS ON VENTURE-CAPITAL-BACKED COMPANIES EXPLOITING WORKERS. from anybody who comes over,” explains Keller. “It might not know their name, but it creates a separate profile for each one, and it’s using and permanently storing these recordings.” Keller says Amazon’s Echo devices run afoul of laws in many states, including Illinois and California, that require both parties to consent to a conversation being recorded. The firm sued Amazon last June in California state court and Washington federal court, alleging invasion of privacy on behalf of children being recorded in those states without their consent. To conceive and pursue such legal theories, Keller Lenkner is hiring more than one lawyer a month on average, having already assembled a team of more than 20 lawyers and roughly 50 professional staff. Their focus is on litigators with defense-side experience and an entrepreneurial mindset. Warren Postman, for example, was Vice President and Chief Counsel for Appellate Litigation 66
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
win on any particular defense or any particular issue, you can typically kill a case.” That’s not the case for plaintiffs. “We have to be right on everything, all the way through to the end. They also have to use their creative thinking to originate the idea in the first place, so it’s much more three-dimensional chess,” Keller says. There’s also the benefit of not billing out your life in six-minute increments. “Here, you’re not reduced to what your billing rate is. It’s not about, ‘Oh no, an extra person can’t have an idea and sit in this meeting because the client won’t pay for that hour,’” adds Lenkner. Adam Gerchen, the firm’s CEO, says, “We are, by necessity, a leaner organization, so that means we’re somewhat agnostic to the year of graduation, for instance. You’re getting the ball a lot earlier in your career than you might elsewhere. And those who are successful can rise very quickly.” And rise they have. In the blink of an eye, the firm has moved to the forefront of litigation, from the nationwide opioid epidemic to wholesale assaults on venture-capital-backed companies exploiting workers. Nowhere is their impact being seen as clearly as in their representation of thousands of gig-economy drivers and other workers who previously found it difficult to enforce their rights, in large part because their individual claims were not economically viable for many lawyers. They’ve brought claims against Uber, Lyft, Postmates, DoorDash, and others on behalf of ride-share drivers and couriers denied benefits by their classification as independent contractors rather than employees. The app-based consumer businesses pose a substantial hurdle for lawyers to reach drivers who are being wrongly forced to arbitrate claims. “We’re different because we’re willing to take up the challenge these companies created when they imposed arbitration clauses that require individual disputes, prohibit class actions, and force everybody into the arbitration machine,” Lenkner says. “Most firms have not even tried to say, ‘We’re going to make the economics work of representing this many people on this scale in individual disputes.’” Keller Lenkner has an answer for that, having built a massive infrastructure to serve its clients and having the fortitude to advance the hundreds or thousands of dollars per client that can be
required to pursue an arbitration. To scale those rights means to represent as many as 20,000 clients at a time against the best defense firms in the world. “I would be worried if we weren’t against top firms,” Lenkner says, “because that would mean the defendants thought our cases lacked merit and could easily be defeated by someone who didn’t cost $1,500 an hour.” To succeed on behalf of the workers, they’ll also muster substantial legal acumen, framing the litigation as just the most recent in a long history of business exploiting workers. “At this point, we have almost a century of experience seeing how companies will twist the labor laws and call it ‘innovation.’ This time it’s gig-economy workers - drivers and shoppers and couriers and delivery ‘Dashers,’” says Lenkner. “Decades ago, it was strawberry pickers and piece workers. But at bottom, the theories are the same, and the ways large companies are trying to take advantage of people are the same.” Lenkner says companies have tried to cloak harsh contractual terms and ways of treating people “in technology,” arguing that these dynamics are acceptable simply because they are part of the new economy. “But that new economy is really harming quite a lot of people. It’s creating a workforce of people who are working through six or eight apps for 12 to 17 hours a day to make ends meet, with no benefits, no protection and not even a minimum wage,” Lenkner says. If the farmer of 50 years ago said to the migrant farm worker, “Go pick this part of the strawberry field, go pick that part of the strawberry field,” Keller says, nobody today would say that that worker is not an employee. But if the farmer instead says, “My app is going to tell you, just look at your phone and that will tell you which part of the field to go pick,” that worker has not suddenly become an entrepreneur who controls the levers of profit and loss. He’s still a low-skilled worker who’s toiling really long, hard hours to make ends meet. Keller says innovation and improvements in how we receive goods and services shouldn’t mean that low-skilled workers forego basic protections provided by the law. “Our clients are exactly the people in need of this caliber of representation,” Keller says.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
67
Focus on winning the case. We’ll find the expertise you need.
SOLUTIONS
Experts Referrals Comprehensive Background Checks Phone Consultations Voted #1 Expert Witness Provider By:
In-House Case Validation Expert Challenge Studies Record Review Expedited Search Options
NEW YORK CITY
|
LOS ANGELES
|
DALLAS
www.theexpertinstitute.com 888-858-9511
THE 100 MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Lawdragon is proud to present the 2019 Guide to the Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers, the result of hundreds of law firm submissions and editorial research conducted over the past year. This is the 12th annual guide to leading corporate, defense-side employment lawyers we have produced in partnership with Human Resource Executive (HRE) magazine. In addition to the 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers below, you can also view the Top 20 in Employee Benefits; the Top 20 in Traditional Labor & Employment Law; the Top 20 in Immigration; 40 Up and Comers in the field; and our Hall of Fame guide.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
69
THE 100 MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Nancy L. Abell
Paul Hastings
Los Angeles
Rory Judd Albert
Proskauer
New York
Rosemary Alito
K&L Gates
Newark
Lorie E. Almon
Seyfarth Shaw
New York
Eric Amdursky
O'Melveny
Menlo Park, Calif.
Michael L. Banks
Morgan Lewis
Philadelphia
Johnine Barnes
Greenberg Traurig
Washington, D.C.
Mario Barrera
Norton Rose Fulbright
San Antonio
Mark Batten
Proskauer
Boston
Joseph Baumgarten
Proskauer
New York
Naomi G. Beer
Greenberg Traurig
Denver
Scott C. Beightol
Michael Best
Milwaukee
Lisa M. Bertain
Keesal Young
San Francisco
Charles S. Birenbaum
Greenberg Traurig
San Francisco
Elise M. Bloom
Proskauer
New York
Sarah Bouchard
Morgan Lewis
Philadelphia
James N. Boudreau
Greenberg Traurig
Philadelphia
Robert Brooks
Adler Pollock
Providence, R.I.
Paul W. Cane Jr.
Paul Hastings
San Francisco
Mark Casciari
Seyfarth Shaw
Chicago
Terri Chase
Jones Day
New York
Apalla U. Chopra
O'Melveny
Los Angeles
Shauna Clark
Norton Rose Fulbright
Houston
Joseph T. Clees
Ogletree Deakins
Phoenix
70
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
JOHNINE BARNES
BY ALISON PREECE
JOHNINE BARNES TAKES A BUSINESSminded approach to her employment law practice, working closely with executives to implement structures and policies that will keep them compliant while supporting the larger goals of their companies. And her experience as a litigator goes beyond labor and employment – she’s tried cases over trade secret and property interest disputes, among others – which gives her deeper insight into the potential effects of certain decisions and enables her to help clients make the best strategic choices. She is based in the Washington, D.C., office of Greenberg Traurig. Lawdragon: Will you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena? Johnine Barnes: I consider myself a true labor and employment lawyer. I had the good fortune of being mentored and trained by the first female to serve on and chair the National Labor Relations Board and serve as the head of the Wage and Hour Division, Betty Southard Murphy, during a time when employment discrimination laws were being developed. Thus, my practice has developed with a good mix of employment litigation, administrative/regulatory work and traditional labor work. Today, I continue to have a mix of counseling and compliance work, both labor and employment, and litigation work, including administrative claims, in my practice. However, the majority of my work tends to be more counseling and compliance in employment discrimination laws, and in the government contracting area. LD: What first drew you to develop this type of practice? JB: I grew up in the Midwest when the steel and manufacturing industries were robust. My father worked in a steel mill for 46 years, holding positions on the line and in management throughout his career. The steel mill at which he worked was one of the first steel mills with an ESOP [Employee Stock Ownership Plan]. I had the opportunity to see first-hand the inner-workings of labor/management relations, and how industries change over time. This, along with the hilariously inappropriate work jokes that my father would tell at the dinner table (and make my mother cringe) sparked my interest in labor and employment law. It is this mix of
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
people dynamics and business that interested me in developing a labor and employment practice. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? JB: I enjoy practicing in the area of labor and employment because it encompasses a human aspect intertwined with business and law and thus, is continually evolving and changing. Additionally, I like that there is a good mix of transactional and litigation work in the practice area. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, is there one matter that stands out as particularly interesting or memorable? JB: I have worked on quite a few interesting matters throughout my career. One of the most interesting matters on which I have worked is the representation of a foreign sovereign in a matter involving a foreign sovereign employee who had misappropriated money and laundered the same to U.S. citizens. The matter involved representing the interests of the foreign sovereign in the criminal prosecution of the foreign employee in the United States, as well as an internal investigation into the manner in which the money was misappropriated and to where it was laundered. My work also involved assisting the foreign sovereign in changing its policies and procedures to put in safeguards against such
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
71
employee misconduct in the future, and to bring the same in compliance with U.S. law to the extent the same would apply to certain relationships. LD: Have you received any recent recognitions that have been particularly meaningful to you? JB: I was honored and humbled to be listed on the Human Resource Executive 2019 report as one of the “The Nation’s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys – Top 100.” I know that this recognition, in part, is due to the opportunity that I have to provide legal services to clients, and to practice law collegially with other great attorneys and executives. Likewise, I always appreciate when a client contact asks and wants me to interface with his or her Board and/ or executive management team when addressing human capital issues in regard to strategic goals or outlooks of the client. I have been asked to do so twice within the last 18 months. Additionally, I appreciate when a client asks me to work on the planning and preparation for an event at which the client is being honored, like a gala. In this instance, I feel like the client has garnered enough trust in me through my legal work for it and thus, trusts that I also will make sure that all professional matters for the client are successful. And, I am appreciative to be included in the celebration of the client’s achievements. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your employment practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days? JB: Review of employment policies and procedures are keeping me busy these days. With Congress not passing needed amendments to current employment laws, the Courts have been left to address many changing areas of law. Unfortunately, this has resulted sometimes in inconsistent interpretations of laws across jurisdictions. For national and international business, this requires constant changes and review of existing policies and procedures. Additionally, administrative matters are also increasing. Again, as ambiguity or lack of expansion of employment laws exist, administrative agencies have attempted to enforce new and/or existing regulations absent statutory mandate. LD: What does your current workload look like? JB: In addition to my consistent client advice and counseling matters, I am currently handling whistleblower and employee misconduct matters. Additionally, due to my trial experience, I also am
72
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
involved in litigation that does not involve employment issues. One beneficial experience, that I thought was a burden at the time, but my mentor required I have in developing my practice, is trial experience. Because discrimination and harassment matters were (and are) rarely tried, I developed my trial practice trying medical malpractices cases, in addition to employment litigation. I was put on medical malpractice cases because they rarely settle and more often than not, will contain most issues that arise in complex litigation. LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in employment law? JB: As I mentioned, I always had an interest in labor and employment law due to my upbringing. However, my participation in the Washington Center program solidified my desire to practice labor and employment law, as opposed to being a public servant. My undergraduate degree is in political science and economics. At one time, I entertained the thought of being a public servant. After interning in Congress as part of my participation in the Washington Center program and seeing the bureaucracy of government, I finalized my decision to attend law school with aspirations to practice administrative law in the labor area. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that influenced your law career? JB: I worked while I attended college and also through law school. I interned at a law firm in Northeast Ohio after my junior year in college. This experience helped solidify my interest in the practice of law. During my last year in college, I interned for the City of Cleveland City Council Chairman. This experience, coming after having interned on Capitol Hill in the Washington Center program solidified my interest in going to law school, as opposed to working in the public sector. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? JB: I advise current law school students to get as much professional experience while in law school as possible. Because the law is ever-changing and businesses are global, it is important that lawyers not only know the law, but also his or her client’s business and trends impacting the same. Thus, when doing a legal analysis, lawyers now must be able to give clients legal and practical advice based on the law.
I ALWAYS APPRECIATE WHEN A CLIENT CONTACT ASKS AND WANTS ME TO INTERFACE WITH HIS OR HER BOARD AND/OR EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM WHEN ADDRESSING HUMAN CAPITAL ISSUES IN REGARD TO STRATEGIC GOALS OR OUTLOOKS OF THE CLIENT. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO SO TWICE WITHIN THE LAST 18 MONTHS. Additionally, for law students who know that they want to practice in litigation, it is imperative that they take a clinic and/or several writing classes. I was fortunate to take trial tactics from Professor James McElhaney while in law school. I still have his trial notebook text, and Strunk & White, on my bookshelf. There are several trial tactics and preparation methods that are tried and true, and these should be learned and practiced in law. LD: Can you talk more about the mentors who helped shape the course of your professional life? JB: I have been blessed to have great mentors throughout my professional career. I have tried to navigate my life like the law, to build on knowledge previously espoused. One of my first professional mentors was Owen Heggs. Among other professional accomplishments, Owen was a partner at Jones Day. When I looked at summer associate programs during law school, Owen did not encourage me to come work with him at Jones Day. He did not for two reasons. First, he thought that I would get first hand professional experience at a smaller firm. Second, he was not able to be a champion for me at Jones Day, as he was suffering from an illness that tragically took his life before I graduated law school. Owen explained to me that an attorney needs to have a champion or supporter to help him or her develop and succeed in a law firm. His reasoning for what I should look for in law firm employment was good advice, also as to some elements needed to develop a successful law practice. The training and mentorship that I have received over my professional career have been invaluable. And, I have kept that knowledge bestowed by Owen and other mentors with me.
also advise as to potential liabilities. Additionally, having trial experience is very valuable because I have a different perspective on the potential effects or liabilities of the implementation of certain policies and procedures. For instance, one client wanted to change the culture of its workforce and make the workforce more productive and forward thinking. In doing so, the client implemented new policies and procedures that worked toward these goals and were going to be enforced. This was different from the past practices of the client. In assisting the client in this process, I advised the client that given the litigious nature of society, the changes would result in an increase in administrative claims, as well as increased claims within its internal grievance procedures. And, it did. Throughout this process, I was mindful of the need to keep the client’s legal fees down as this would be an area of scrutiny in the management. So, as part of the implementation on the new policies, I trained the client to be able to address certain administrative claims on its own, for example, workers’ compensation claims, and also assisted in revising its internal grievance procedures to make it more effective to resolve most employee grievances internally. It is that full-circle practical legal advice that clients need in today’s cost pressure environment. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? JB: I like to spend time with my family, engage in extreme sports, adrenaline rush activities such as sky-diving, and traveling. I ran the 2019 New York City Marathon, my third marathon.
LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer?
LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities?
JB: I describe my style as a counseling partner with clients. I think that it is important to know your client’s business and trends in their industry. When I counsel clients, I give practical legal advice that will help the client achieve its objectives, and
JB: I enjoy working with programs for disadvantaged youth and also mentoring programs for young women. I work or have worked with several organizations to help empower African-American youth and young women in particular.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
73
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
John J. Coleman III
Burr & Forman
Birmingham, Ala.
Karen Corman
Skadden
Los Angeles
Joseph J. Costello
Morgan Lewis
Philadelphia
M. Carter Crow
Norton Rose Fulbright
Houston
Lisa J. Damon
Seyfarth Shaw
Boston
Mike Delikat
Orrick
New York
Dennis P. Duffy
BakerHostetler
Houston
Juan Enjamio
Hunton Andrews Kurth
Miami
Anne Marie Estevez
Morgan Lewis
Miami
Mark J. Foley
Drinker Biddle
Philadelphia
Adam S. Forman
Epstein Becker
Southfield, Mich.
Gary D. Friedman
Weil
New York
Michael J. Gray
Jones Day
Chicago
Elizabeth P. Hardy
Kienbaum Hardy Viviano Pelton Forrest
Birmingham, Mich.
Gerald T. Hathaway
Drinker Biddle
New York
Lynne C. Hermle
Orrick
Menlo Park, Calif.
Patrick H. Hicks
Littler
Las Vegas
Stephen J. Hirschfeld
Hirschfeld Kraemer
San Francisco
Robert W. Horton
Bass Berry & Sims
Nashville
Maurice G. Jenkins
Jackson Lewis
Southfield, Mich.
Wendy Johnson Lario
Greenberg Traurig
Florham Park, N.J.
Jennifer P. Keller
Baker Donelson
Johnson City
Mark D. Kemple
Greenberg Traurig
Los Angeles
Tracey A. Kennedy
Sheppard Mullin
Los Angeles
F. Curt Kirschner Jr.
Jones Day
San Francisco
Jeffrey S. Klein
Weil
New York
Jeffrey Kohn
O'Melveny
New York
74
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
MARK LERNER
BY JOHN RYAN
MARK LERNER ENJOYS WATCHING HIS
adversaries’ unique or flashy styles, but a straightforward and trustworthy approach is what has driven his long record of success in the courtroom. Lerner heads the Employment Practices and Litigation Group at Kasowitz Benson Torres and is also included in Lawdragon’s Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers guide. “Over time, credibility is an enormous asset which helps clients immeasurably,” Lerner explains. The New York-based partner has an enormous amount of trial experience, having spent over seven years as a federal prosecutor before entering private practice in 1999. He also spent two years working on Capitol Hill between his time at Amherst College and Stanford Law School, and a year clerking for a federal judge. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena?
ployment case, and I quickly learned that employmentrelated trials were more frequent than in other areas, so I gravitated toward the area and have enjoyed it ever since.
Mark Lerner: I am a litigator first, and will try any type of case. My employment litigation practice revolves around five active areas: restrictive covenant enforcement/defense; misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duties; executive and private equity contract disputes involving carried interest, bonuses and severance; sexual harassment and discrimination claims; and wage and hour actions.
LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying?
One of the unique aspects of employment law is the opportunity to get involved before litigation starts. This is usually not an option in other areas of litigation, when defense lawyers get called only after a complaint has been filed. So an important part of my practice is walking clients through difficult situations, whether it be how to hire a business group from a competitor, or how to fire an employee who may sue.
I also enjoy taking clients through the process, including depositions and trial. I always tell clients that not every day at trial will feel like a great day for us. It’s a long game, and you fight to win every play, but there’s the occasional sack. Otherwise the case wouldn’t be going to trial!
LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? ML: I was a federal prosecutor from 1991 to 1999. I tried numerous cases with and against some wellknown New York trial lawyers. Eventually I was teaching trial techniques and second-chairing junior prosecutors. When I entered private practice, I wanted to leverage my trial skills, which can really add value to my clients. On my first day at Kasowitz, I was asked to try a case that was rapidly coming up for trial. It was in an em-
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
ML: Mapping out a strategy knowing what a trial will look like down the road. And, when you are well prepared, even when the case takes twists and turns, you can adjust advantageously. That is very satisfying.
LD: What would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? ML: I tried a case in 2017 for a private equity firm against one of its former partners who claimed carried interest rights superior to all of the other partners. What made it interesting is that he had spent years “setting up” this claim, and he was well-equipped to do so, with a J.D./MBA, a Masters in Engineering and 10 years in private equity. To prevail in the case, I had to learn that firm’s complex fund and compensation structures; understand what the plaintiff had done over time; and then design a trial strategy which would
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
75
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Matthew W. Lampe
Jones Day
New York
Paul Lancaster Adams
Ogletree Deakins
Philadelphia
Kevin B. Leblang
Kramer Levin
New York
Mark W. Lerner
Kasowitz
New York
Adam Levin
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
Los Angeles
Robert G. Lian Jr.
Akin Gump
Washington, D.C.
Joseph C. Liburt
Orrick
Menlo Park, Calif.
Fermin H. Llaguno
Littler
Irvine, Calif.
David Long-Daniels
Greenberg Traurig
Atlanta
Alison B. Marshall
Jones Day
Washington, D.C.
William C. Martucci
Shook
Washington, D.C.
Michele Maryott
Gibson Dunn
Irvine, Calif.
Terence McCourt
Greenberg Traurig
Boston
Matthew T. Miklave
Robinson+Cole
Stamford, Conn.
Marko J. Mrkonich
Littler
Minneapolis
Daniel L. Nash
Akin Gump
Washington, D.C.
Michael Patrick O'Brien
Jones Waldo
Salt Lake City
Camille A. Olson
Seyfarth Shaw
Chicago
Anthony J. Oncidi
Proskauer
Los Angeles
William P. Perkins
Seyfarth Shaw
New York
Jessica Perry
Orrick
Menlo Park, Calif.
Laura R. Petroff
Winston & Strawn
Los Angeles
Charles M. Poplstein
Thompson Coburn
St. Louis
Roger K. Quillen
Fisher & Phillips
Atlanta
Colleen M. Regan
Seyfarth Shaw
Los Angeles
D. Michael Reilly
Lane Powell
Seattle
Michael Roche
Winston & Strawn
Chicago
76
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
both educate the court and tell our story effectively. When the judge delivered his decision, his lengthy opinion recited the facts and conclusions exactly as we had advocated.
ML: Your law school class friends and other connections will become invaluable resources during your entire career. Form strong bonds and maintain them, and it will pay off personally and professionally.
LD: Can you describe one of your recent cases?
LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer?
ML: I recently represented Douglas Elliman Real Estate in a lawsuit against competitor William Raveis Real Estate for raiding one of Elliman’s branch offices – Raveis hired Elliman’s branch manager and agents accounting for two-thirds of the branch’s sales and then moved them across the street to join Raveis. We discovered that the Elliman manager had orchestrated the exodus while she was still at Elliman, and Raveis had helped her. We sued the manager for breach of fiduciary duty and Raveis for aiding and abetting, and then won a substantial jury verdict that included punitive damages. LD: What was the impact of this case? ML: The case was widely covered in the real estate press, and it established boundaries around the extent to which brokerages can recruit groups of agents from a competitor. It made it clear that branch managers owe their primary duty of loyalty to their employers, and not to their sales agents who are often their friends. It provides strong protection to real estate brokerages so that their managers cannot work against them by recruiting agents to another firm. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that were influential? ML: After graduating college, I worked for two years before starting law school. I spent most of that time working for Senator Christopher Dodd in Washington, D.C. As I sought to advance my career, I realized that most of my superiors were lawyers, and that’s what made me seek a law school education. At the time, I thought I would use my degree to return to public policy work, not to become a litigator. LD: So you did not expect to have this type of practice while in law school? ML: Even in law school I did not anticipate being a commercial litigator. I aspired to be an Assistant District Attorney or an Assistant U.S. Attorney, more from the public service aspect, or going back into public policy in Washington, D.C. But I enjoyed the courtroom so much as a prosecutor that I pursued a career as a litigator in private practice. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?
ML: You have to adopt a style that is comfortable and works for you. My style is to be doggedly persistent, and trustworthy to judges, juries and clients, without necessarily being flashy. Trustworthy means if I can’t represent a fact to be true, I don’t. If I’m not sure a fact will be proved by the evidence at trial, I won’t claim it will be in an opening statement. Judges and juries remember these things, and any failure to deliver will hurt you. I enjoy watching other styles, but what I do best is deliver facts, back them up, and not sell something to a judge, jury or my clients that I don’t believe in myself. That approach allows me to deliver my arguments with a high degree of confidence and forcefulness that maximizes my persuasiveness in the courtroom. It also serves me well with clients, as they come to trust my judgment and prediction of the direction a case will take. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you try to sell about your firm to potential recruits ? ML: We are aggressive but at the same time thoughtful and strategic. We do not shy away from a fight, and if you want to litigate boldly, we are the firm for you. Young lawyers will learn litigation from partners and senior associates who have been to court, argued motions and tried cases. We love to provide opportunities for young lawyers to get experiences that add to their capabilities, and overall we present clients with an extremely well-rounded team at every level. At Kasowitz, we regularly handle cases in the limelight of press coverage so we understand the added pressures that can bring as well. Learning how to do that is an important part of our training. LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system? ML: One of the best portrayals of the criminal justice system I’ve seen is “The Night Of,” an HBO mini-series that takes the viewer minute-by-minute from a young man’s arrest to his prosecution for a serious crime in New York City. It is dark, gritty and meticulously realistic. For books, I always recommend Tom Wolfe’s “The Bonfire of the Vanities” for fiction, and Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Run of His Life” about the O.J. Simpson criminal trial for non-fiction.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
77
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Theodore O. Rogers Jr.
Sullivan & Cromwell
New York
Jeremy A. Roth
Littler
San Diego
Paul Salvatore
Proskauer
New York
Terry E. Sanchez
Munger Tolles
Los Angeles
Eugene Scalia
Gibson Dunn
Washington, D.C.
David Schwartz
Skadden
New York
Jason Schwartz
Gibson Dunn
Washington, D.C.
Jonathan A. Segal
Duane Morris
Philadelphia
Todd Shadle
Godwin Bowman
Dallas
Samuel S. Shaulson
Morgan Lewis
New York
Patrick W. Shea
Paul Hastings
New York
Dawn Siler-Nixon
FordHarrison
Tampa
Salvador Simao
FordHarrison
Berkeley Heights, N.J.
Grace E. Speights
Morgan Lewis
Washington
Jonathan Stoler
Sheppard Mullin
New York
Julianne Story
Husch Blackwell
Kansas City
Nigel F. Telman
Proskauer
Chicago
Joseph E. Tilson
Cozen O'Connor
Chicago
Joseph J. Torres
Winston & Strawn
Chicago
Julie Totten
Orrick
Sacramento
Jeff Weintraub
Fisher & Phillips
Memphis
Robert M. Wolff
Littler
Cleveland
Todd D. Wozniak
Greenberg Traurig
Atlanta
78
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
ROBERT BROOKS
BY ALISON PREECE
ROBERT BROOKS HAS AN EMPLOYMENT
practice closely attuned to the clients he represents. For companies in both the public and private sectors, Brooks negotiates contracts, informs on reorganizations and mergers, and goes up against unions on collective bargaining agreements. He advises management on the shifting regulatory landscape, and helps them build internal structures to maintain equitable and efficient work environments. Brooks is the Managing Partner of Providence, R.I.-based Adler Pollock & Sheehan and Chairman of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Group. Lawdragon: What does your practice focus on? Robert Brooks: My practice focuses on representing employers in both the private and public sectors and touches on every aspect of employment and labor law imaginable. On the employment law side, I defend employers accused of discrimination on the basis of age, race, national origin, sex and sexual orientation. I counsel employers on compliance with federal and state employment laws, such as the FMLA, the ADA and the Equal Pay Act. I also counsel employers on wage and hour law and OSHA compliance. In addition, I have a very busy labor practice, representing employers in the public and business sectors in a wide range of industries. I have negotiated collective bargaining contracts for municipalities with police officers, firefighters and municipal workers, and I have also represented public utilities, construction companies, manufacturing companies, performing arts venues and sports arenas. I have negotiated collective bargaining contracts with every conceivable public and private sector labor union. LD: What do you enjoy about this variety of work? RB: On the employment side, I enjoy assisting clients to achieve their governmental or business objectives. This can range from advising clients that are merging workforces as part of an acquisition of another company, or reorganizing a company when it is starting a new business line, or expanding into a new geographic region. The complexities of how the various employment laws impact the employer’s decisions is both interesting and challenging. It is very satisfying to help the client achieve its business goals. On the labor side, I enjoy the art of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. Each collective bargaining negotiation is different. Some employers want to achieve
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
economic goals, and others want to make sure that the language covering its operations allows it to remain flexible and utilize the talents of its workforce as efficiently as possible. I have a great deal of respect for all of the workers on the various union negotiating teams that I bargain with. I grew up in a working class family, so I understand their hopes, dreams and concerns, and I try to make sure that I set a tone at the bargaining table of professionalism and respect. It does my client no good if the union bargaining team leaves the table disgusted with the contract it has signed, or with management. While I might leave the day-to-day interaction with the parties once the contract is completed, the union and the employer must continue to live and work together after the new contract is signed. LD: What trends are you seeing in employment law? RB: I’ve seen an increase in the number of cases involving bullying and harassment, particularly in the construction industry. These cases have involved male employees bullying female employees and employees using rough language and then going too far by using ethnic and racial epithets. Unfortunately, some employers in the construction industry have either not been successful in creating a more tolerant work atmosphere, or have not tried hard enough to promote a work environment in the field that is free from bullying and discriminatory conduct. There is still in some places a “boys will be boys” mentality that permeates the day-to-day work environment, and I have seen some unfortunate cases in which employees have been made to suffer considerably as a result.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
79
TOP 20: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Erin Cho
Groom Law Group
Washington, D.C.
Stephen W. Fackler
Gibson Dunn
Palo Alto, Calif.
Gary M. Ford
Groom Law Group, Chartered
Washington, D.C.
Nancy Gerrie
Winston
Chicago
W. Michael Gradisek
Duane Morris
Philadelphia
Paul M. Hamburger
Proskauer
Washington, D.C.
Eric W. Hilfers
Cravath
New York
David N. Levine
Groom Law Group, Chartered
Washington, D.C.
Ian Morrison
Seyfarth Shaw
Chicago
Robert Newman
Covington & Burling
Washington, D.C.
Nicholas J. Pappas
Weil
New York
Steven W. Rabitz
Dechert
New York
Andrea S. Rattner
Proskauer
New York
John A. Reade, Jr.
Duane Morris
Philadelphia
David Rogers
Winston
Washington, D.C.
Myron D. Rumeld
Proskauer
New York
Neal S. Schelberg
Proskauer
New York
Howard Shapiro
Proskauer
New Orleans
Andrée St. Martin
Groom Law Group
Washington, D.C.
René E. Thorne
Jackson Lewis
New Orleans
80
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: Can you discuss some recent cases? RB: I recently represented a construction employer with a female safety director. One of this company’s oldest and most experienced male employees did not appreciate taking safety advice from the company’s safety director. This employee, while showing off for his co-workers, decided that he would “scare” the safety director by throwing a pocketknife into a wooden board that was close to where the safety director was standing. The safety director immediately reported this conduct, and the male employee was forced to retire. The story does not end there. A month or so later, the same safety director was at a safety training for a group of the company’s employees. A male employee sat down next to the safety director, faced his camera phone toward her and showed her that he was taking her picture. He then showed her he was attaching the picture to a text message and he then sent the picture to one of his contacts, which turned out to be the previously retired employee. A little while later, this employee received a text message back in which the sender asked why he was being forced to look at a picture of the safety director in terms that were both offense and derogatory. The safety director, who was both petrified and horrified, reported the conduct and this second employee was terminated. I was fortunate enough to successfully defend this employer, which was accused of wrongful termination of the offending employee. LD: What were some challenges in building a defense? RB: The first key challenge in defending the construction employer that terminated the employee in this case was gathering all of the different types of evidence needed to demonstrate the employee’s wrongdoing. Fortunately, the safety director reported the terminated employee’s offending conduct immediately after the safety meeting. The employer launched an investigation that day and also placed the offending employee on a suspension pending this investigation. The employer also confiscated the employee’s company cellphone, which contained all of the electronic evidence of the photo he had taken of the safety director and the text messages he exchanged with the previously-terminated employee. Having this evidence was crucial to proving the employer’s case. The other key challenge in successfully representing the client in this case was preparing the safety director to testify against the offending employee. To testify in a case like this can be very intimidating for the victim, and practicing the testimony and preparing the witness for what she might encounter during her testimony was key to the successful defense of this employer. The safety
director was courageous and did a great job in her testimony, and we could not have won the case without her. LD: Can you talk a bit about the impact of this win? RB: For the client, having two employees leave the workforce, one by a forced retirement, and the other by a termination so quickly due to harassing behavior sent a clear message to the rest of the workforce that such conduct would not be tolerated. This employer followed up these cases with harassment and bullying training for all employees and its work atmosphere has been greatly improved. This case is also a message to the construction industry that although it is dominated by males, particularly white males, women and other protected class employees are becoming a larger percentage of construction workforces and the employees in these workforces need to exhibit the same respect and conduct that are expected of employees in any other professional work atmosphere. LD: Can you name a courtroom opponent you admire? RB: One lawyer I particularly admire is Joseph F. Penza of Olenn & Penza. Joe specialized in representing police officers at the collective bargaining table, in grievance arbitrations, and in police disciplinary matters. I admire Joe because he is the consummate professional. He is always prepared, and it’s very obvious that he has put a lot of thought into the matter he is handling before he gets to the hearing or negotiating table. When I have a case against Joe, I know I need to bring my “A” game. I feel like I am getting ready to play the New York Yankees with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, or the Boston Celtics of the 1960s. Because of this, I always try and go the extra mile in getting ready for a case with Joe, and at the end of a long day, I always feel as though I have done my best. Joe and I are often asked to speak together at various labor and employment law conferences, and it is always an honor to be on the same stage with him. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? RB: My style is to be knowledgeable about my case and the law and prepared for whatever is required to be done on behalf of my client. I am straightforward and I pull no punches, but I am respectful and polite to my adversaries. I also have a good sense of humor, and I have a knack for being able to lighten the mood just at the right time. I hope others see me as someone who truly loves what he does, that is professional and prepared and is a worthy adversary. I also hope that they know that I very much enjoy interacting with those that I encounter in my cases and collective bargaining negotiations, whatever side they may be on.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
81
TOP 20: LABOR & EMPLOYMENT NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Neil H. Abramson
Proskauer
New York
Nicholas Anastasopoulos
Mirick O'Connell
Westborough, Mass.
M.J. Asensio
BakerHostetler
Columbus, Ohio
Howard E. Cole
Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Las Vegas
Patricia Dunn
Jones Day
Washington, D.C.
Brian West Easley
Jones Day
Minneapolis
Angelo J. Genova
Genova Burns
Newark, N.J.
Gregg A. Gliman
Davis & Gilbert
New York
Clifford A. Godiner
Thompson Coburn
St. Louis
Betty Graumlich
Reed Smith
Richmond, Va.
Steven M. Gutierrez
Holland & Hart
Denver
Jacqueline M. Holmes
Jones Day
Washington, D.C.
Aparna Joshi
O'Melveny
Washington, D.C.
Michael Lebowich
Proskauer
New York
Neal D. Mollen
Paul Hastings
Washington, D.C.
Marilyn Pearson
McDermott
Chicago
Bernard M. Plum
Proskauer
New York
Thomas G. Servodidio
Duane Morris
Philadelphia
Richard F. Vitarelli
Jackson Lewis
Hartford, Conn.
Anna Wermuth
Cozen O'Connor
Chicago
82
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
BETTY GRAUMLICH
BY ALISON PREECE
BETTY GRAUMLICH IS A SEASONED LABOR
and employment lawyer, with clients among the top brass of a variety of industries, including finance, entertainment, retail and manufacturing, defense, and health care. She brings this breadth of experience to bear in her practice, leading litigation teams, handling arbitrations, and providing counsel to employers and management. Her current practice involves a good many whistleblower and discrimination claims, as the larger practice trends in that direction. She is a partner at Reed Smith. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena? Betty Graumlich: I lead teams defending employers in a wide variety of employment litigation cases, including all types of discrimination allegations and FCA and SOX whistleblower retaliation cases. I also represent management in labor arbitrations, assist with L&E due diligence on M&A transactions and counsel employers on a wide range of employment and labor issues. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? BG: I have always been interested in studying workplace issues, starting with my focus in college in Political and Social Thought, which is an interdisciplinary studies major created at the University of Virginia. LD: What keeps you excited about this type of work? BG: Labor and employment work is “people law.” For that reason, it is never dull and boring. To coin a phrase, “people do the darndest things!” LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? BG: Defeating an attempt to enjoin a foreign client from bidding on a €1 billion government contract in another country based on an alleged theft of trade secrets in the U.S. LD: What trends are you seeing in your practice? BG: We are handling more and more whistleblower retaliation cases and discrimination cases with a retaliation allegation. LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law? BG: Yes. I took a course in legal philosophy and loved “issue spotting.” That course made me decide to apply to law school. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that contributed to you going to law school?
BG: I worked as a paralegal for a year at Arnold & Porter and saw brilliant legal work and got to work on incredibly sophisticated matters. That year solidified my interest in pursing a legal career. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose your law school over another law school? BG: I chose the University of Virginia because of its incredible reputation and the advantage of in-state tuition! LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school? BG: No, I can’t say I knew in law school what kind of practice I wanted. LD: Was there a professor who was particularly influential in shaping your education or early law career? BG: Charlie Whitebread, a UVA law school professor at the time, was both my undergraduate advisor and a mentor. He taught me to take good professors and high level, substantive courses of all types. One of the professors whose course I took, Dante Germino, fueled my interest in philosophy and led me to read a number of works that sparked my interest in the law of the workplace. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? BG: I am assertive and a fierce opponent when needed, but also very practical and reasonable when opposing counsel approaches a case the same way. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelight-betty-graumlich.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
83
TOP 20: CORPORATE IMMIGRATION NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Daryl Buffenstein
Fragomen
Atlanta
Bo Cooper
Fragomen
Washington, D.C.
Matthew S. Dunn
Kramer Levin
New York
Jeremy Fudge
Berry Appleman & Leiden
Richardson, Texas
Carl Hampe
Fragomen
Washington, D.C.
Kate Kalmykov
Greenberg Traurig
Florham Park, N.J.
Mark D. Koestler
Kramer Levin
New York
Lynden Melmed
Berry Appleman & Leiden
Washington, D.C.
Deborah J. Notkin
Barst Mukamal & Kleiner
New York
Julie Pearl
Pearl Law Group
San Francisco
Eleanor Pelta
Morgan Lewis
Washington, D.C.
Thomas Ragland
Clark Hill
Washington, D.C.
Laura Foote Reiff
Greenberg Traurig
Washington, D.C.
Martha Schoonover
Greenberg Traurig
McLean, Va
Suzanne B. Seltzer
The Seltzer Firm
New York
William A. Stock
Klasko Immigration Law Partners
Philadelphia
Christy Nguyen Umstadter
Pearl Law Group
San Francisco
David A.M.Ware
Ware Law
Metairie, La
Bernard Wolfsdorf
Wolfsdorf
Santa Monica, Calif.
Scott W. Wright
Faegre Baker Daniels
Minneapolis
84
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
STEVEN ECKHAUS
BY ALISON PREECE
STEVEN ECKHAUS IS REGULARLY CALLED
to the table by influential executives to hammer out compensation packages and other crucial employment matters. An experienced litigator as well as an adept dealmaker, Eckhaus has set key precedents in employee discrimination laws and has successfully negotiated more than $6 billion in compensation for his clients to date. He is head of the Employee Benefits, Compensation, Labor and Employment Group in McDermott Will & Emery’s New York office. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment area? Steven Eckhaus: I advise decision makers, partnerships and creatives including CEOs, founders, partners, fund managers, technologists, general and limited partners, family office managers, traders and investment bankers on all matters related and tangential to their employment, partnership, ownership, compensation and equity. I negotiate their employment agreements, earn-outs, bonus plans, equity arrangements, carry plans, “splits,” limited partner agreements, joint venture agreements, succession plans, separation agreements, retirement agreements, and post-retirement agreements.
Within those “wrappers” there often are intellectual property matters to negotiate involving inventions, copyrights including derivative law agreements, licenses and patents. Virtually every agreement requires negotiating Change in Control including “Parachute Tax” issues; confidentiality, non-competition and nonsolicitation covenants. Cause and Good Reason. Clawbacks. CEO and founder agreements often specify where their authorities end and the Board of Directors authority begins. If the agreement is with a European financial institution you will have potential limits to compensation under CRD-4, or Capital Requirements Directives. If it’s a Swiss Bank you will also need to consider Minder’s rules. If the company is a not-forprofit, you have to be able to establish that the compensation is “reasonable.” I am somewhat unique in this era as I was trained as a trial lawyer and I handle the litigation that sometimes arises when negotiations fail. Having taken contract matters to court, I know which terms and conditions matter, and how they will be viewed in court, which helps me focus my negotiations, and is a big reason for whatever success I have as a lawyer.
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
Most exec comp lawyers are tax lawyers. Litigation is likely to involve “squeeze outs,” non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, bonuses, confidential information, intellectual property and derivative law agreements, Cause or Good Reason terminations, and interference with contracts. I also advise business enterprises and compensation committees on the same headline topics, and handle related litigation, but from the opposite side of the table or courtroom. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What has kept you at it over the years? SE: About twenty-five years ago, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company came to see me. The person who recommended me told the CEO not to talk with me by phone, but to sit with me in my office and talk face to face. My clients are some of the most brilliant and accomplished people in the world, and in my office, we talk. My clients respect my judgment and appreciate my advice, which is not necessarily confined to matters in the employment lawyer box. This practice never gets old. I enjoy it every day. LD: Can you share a few of your strategies or methods for negotiating complex compensation matters with successful results? SE: I rely on four key ingredients to successfully negotiate complex and high level compensation matters.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
85
First. Lawyers talk too much. Listen to the client before, during and after the negotiations. And I always tell my client what I think. Next, take the emotions and drama out of the room. These negotiations are life-cycle events. Stay centered, make sure the client knows you care. Keep everyone calm. Third, in several hundred matters over the past 25 years I have worked with a world-class economist, Stephen O’Byrne, one of the originators of Economic Value Added, or EVA. In the early days we just did Black-Scholes modeling. Now, we go under the hood of the companies we are negotiating with or working for, and evaluate, measure and model incentive compensation outcomes, to determine values, and develop algorithms that give us a basis for determining what is truly exceptional performance. We then either import that into the contract that we are negotiating, or use it to test the compensation plan that we are being offered, or otherwise as a negotiation tool. I bring tax counsel into the mix, and other consultants as I think will be helpful. Finally, in the private equity, IPO, and merger & acquisition contexts, the CEO’s employment agreement is held to the end and treated almost as an afterthought, something that doesn’t take much thought and anyone can review. The CEO is anxious to close and just wants to sign. The CEO’s lawyer is reduced to what I call ”checklist” negotiating – making sure the required topics are included, but not negotiating anything other than the most egregious overreaches. I insist on early participation in the transaction so the CEO agreement leads the deal. I like to say that the CEO’s influence should be apparent on every page of the Operating or Stockholder Agreement. That may be an overstatement but it sets the right tone for the negotiation. LD: How would you describe your style as a negotiator? SE: As a negotiator I see myself and the person across the table as partners. Our clients will be working together, so the most important goal is to get the deal right. My style is calm, focused and cooperative, but I know what is commercial, I’ve done my homework and modeled outcomes, and I know what my client will accept and why. LD: How about as a litigator? SE: When I was a young lawyer, learning my craft, trying criminal cases, I won my first jury trial, then
86
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
lost my next twelve. I was technically proficient, but dry and dull. In my 14th trial I channeled a stand-up comedian, and everything changed. Since adding humor, and giving up criminal law, I have not lost a case – I’ve just run out of appeals. LD: How do you think others view your style as a negotiator and litigator? SE: As a negotiator… well, from 1998 to 2008 I had represented more than 100 Merrill Lynch executives. When Merrill was acquired by Bank of America, I was hired by the General Counsel of Merrill Lynch to represent her personally. You ask, how do others view my style as a litigator? About 10 years ago I was profiled by a newspaper and the headline called me, “the Darth Vader of Wall Street.” My wife and kids were horrified. I had to explain that, for a lawyer, that was a good thing. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days? SE: We’re seeing a lot of complex projects. We were recently hired by the head of an investment bank who is stepping down to head up a new business funded by the investment bank. We see a lot of non-solicitation, raiding, and derivative law agreements. LD: Can you describe a recent matter that you’ve handled to some agreement or resolution? SE: One of the biggest banks in the world was raided by a would-be competitor who wanted to jumpstart a capital markets business. The bank had a new CEO and on her fifth day, twenty one managers walked out and went across the street to the would-be competitor. I happened to have a meeting with the bank’s Head of HR that same day and was pulled into a meeting with the new CEO and the remaining managers who were scrambling. From my little benefits lawyer corner I suggested checking the emails of the twenty-one managers. That turned up evidence that shortly before resigning, six of the twenty-one managers had emailed bank confidential information to their personal email accounts. None of the managers had signed non-compete or non-solicitation agreements, and their confidentiality agreements were, for the most part, missing. I informed the new CEO that in addition to my executive compensation practice I was an experienced employment trial lawyer. I suggested that we could bring actions against the six managers for breaching
the common law duty of loyalty, and against their new employer for aiding and abetting the breaches of the duty of loyalty. I soon found myself facing off in arbitration against one of New York’s premier litigation law firms. I made no objections during the testimonial portion of the arbitration, and explained to the associates who were supporting me that I wanted the adversary witnesses off the stand as quickly as possible and didn’t want to draw attention to any of our adversary’s witness testimony by objecting. Just before our adversary’s closing statement they proffered a 160-page PowerPoint summary of their case, with a copy for each arbitrator to follow their closing statement and to take home as a resource when they were deciding the case. I objected to the distribution and use of the PowerPoint summary. The Arbitrators sustained my objection. Without their 160page PowerPoint my adversary’s closing statement was like one hand clapping. The arbitrators issued an order, granting our request for a permanent injunction and awarding money damages. About six months later, the would-be competitor closed their new capital markets business. Our bank client rated me as its most effective outside counsel of the year. LD: Did you know during your undergrad that you wanted to move on to a legal career? SE: I had no idea what I would do. After college I worked for Macy’s as an assistant toy buyer. That wasn’t for me so I applied to law school. I worked my way through law school cooking for 1,200 people. All my recipes began, “bring 50 gallons of water to boil.” LD: What led you to stay with Cornell for law school as opposed to other options you may have had? SE: I was an undergrad at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell for two-and-a-half years and loved being in Ithaca. I was offered admission by a number of great law schools including Columbia, Chicago, NYU and Penn, but I wanted to avoid the distractions of the big cities and focus on my education. LD: What initially led you towards an employment practice? SE: After graduating from law school I went to work for two Manhattan criminal trial lawyers, going to night court, trying cases, living the dream. In 1980 I hung up a shingle and started my own practice. By 1986 I
had lost all interest in criminal law and found employment law interesting. In the late 1990s I won a major employment law case in the Second Circuit, reversing then District Court Judge Michael Mukasey. A few months later I won a motion in the case that became the basis of Family Responsibility Discrimination. I had a small executive compensation practice, which was getting bigger. Then, in 2002, Leona Helmsley hired me and I tried a case for her that put me in the news every day for six weeks. I even called her as a witness. I stopped representing her in 2004 and joined a Big Law firm for the first time. I was 52. LD: Is this the type of career you imagined for yourself when you were in law school? SE: I don’t know what sort of practice I imagined while in law school. My philosophy was to choose classes based on the professor, not the subject. I was very fortunate to be at Cornell Law School in the mid-1970s. We had the first trial techniques program in the nation, and it was led by Irving Younger, who also was my mentor. LD: Did you have other early mentors or particularly memorable professors? SE: Other legendary professors who made indelible impacts on my practice included Robert Summers, who taught Contracts. He used to say, “It’s a cinch by the inch. It’s hard by the yard.” Robert Blakey – who taught Criminal Procedure, and who also drafted Title III, the wiretap statute, and was Counsel to the House Committee on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy – he used to say, “If you tear down all the laws to get to the Devil, what will protect you when the Devil turns around and goes after you?” Then there was Dean Roger Crampton, whose tag line was “the same heat that melts the butter hard boils the egg.” I also had Lawrence Palmer for “Experimentation with Human Beings” whom I assisted in defending the first homicide in Ithaca in more than a decade. Robert Martin for Property Law, Rudolph Schlesinger for International Business Transactions, and John Lee Smith for Law, Ethics and Religion and for whom I was a Teaching Assistant. And I would be remiss if I didn’t include Milton Konvitz, who is credited with coining the term “civil liberties” and whose undergraduate classes and writings on the foundations of American liberal democracy are even more important today than when I sat safely in his classes in 1970-1972, the lowest points of the Vietnam War, listening to him talk.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
87
TOP 40: UP AND COMERS NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Sarah Adams
Groom
Washington, D.C.
Geetha Nadiminti Adinata
FordHarrison
Los Angeles
John M. Bagyi
Bond
Albany, N.Y.
Reginald W. Belcher
Turner Padget
Columbia, S.C.
Sabrina Beldner
McGuireWoods
Los Angeles
David Birnbaum
Jones Day
Chicago
Lincoln O. Bisbee
Morgan Lewis
Washington, D.C.
Joanne Bush
Jones Day
Houston
Colleen L. Caden
Pryor Cashman
New York
Meredith S. Campbell
Shulman Rogers
Potomac, Md.
Jesse Cripps
Gibson Dunn
Los Angeles
Felicia Davis
Paul Hastings
Los Angeles
Neil Dishman
Jackson Lewis
Chicago
Edward Easterly
Norris McLaughlin
Allentown, Pa.
Cornia M. Farias
Foster
Austin
Daniel Fazio
Winston Strawn
Chicago
Steve Flores
Winston
Chicago
Avi Friedman
Wolfsdorf
Santa Monica, Calif.
Kortney Gibson
Berry Appleman
Richardson, Texas
Jeremy Glenn
Cozen O'Connor
Chicago
Sandra Grossman
Grossman Young
Bethesda, Md.
Marissa J. Holob
Kramer Levin
New York
Matthew Holt
Hurwitz Holt
San Diego
Julia Judish
Pillsbury
Washington, D.C.
Eliza Kaiser
Kramer Levin
New York
88
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
JAY KRUPIN
BY JOHN RYAN
IT’S A RARE BREED OF LAWYER THAT
makes our Hall of Fame guide. Among them is Jay Krupin, who earned a spot in the top 100 every year between 2010 and 2018 and is co-leader of BakerHostetler’s labor relations practice. For Krupin, the key to arriving and staying at the top of the employment bar has been becoming a true business partner to his clients – many of which he’s kept for decades. The Washington, D.C.-based Krupin earned an L.L.M. in Labor Law at Georgetown University Law Center in addition to his J.D. from St. Louis University. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena? Jay Krupin: My practice supports management-side labor relations. That includes collective bargaining negotiations, employer-union relations, contract administration, and defending NLRB organizing campaigns. I also advise on labor relations issues affecting the purchase and sale of businesses. In addition to U.S. companies, I represent many international enterprises on these matters in the domestic marketplace. LD: How did you become interested in employment law? JK: My dad was the president of the Washington, D.C., restaurant association and engaged in the negotiation of labor agreements covering eleven unionized restaurants. He was intensely focused on the process, and about to institute a lockout. I was in law school and that very week about to sign up for the following semester’s courses. I noticed two courses that were offered: Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining. And as they say, the rest is history. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What keeps you excited about it? JK: Every day I face a new issue. And many times I need to develop a creative approach to deal with the changing workplace environment. I immensely like the outside-thebox approach to solving management-labor issues. Also, I enjoy helping burgeoning or international companies that are unaware of the intricacies of U.S. labor law, and advising them on the nuances of successfully navigating these choppy waters. LD: What does it take to successfully represent employers? JK: It is vitally important to act as a business partner with clients. This means that I need to understand their business. We have a significant practice in hospitality, healthcare, media, and higher education, among others. Clients continually refer us to their colleagues in these industries because they know we understand how they operate,
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
and therefore our advice and ownership of matters is practical and effective. When you engage in labor relations, the process can be approached from one of two vantage points. The other side wants to be either dealmakers or victims. The first means you approach the legal process by finding common ground and expand to the key issues that need a bridge. The second means you have to exercise leverage by increasing apprehension and decreasing expectation. The lesson is to determine which road you will be traveling and decide which arrows you need to place in your quiver. LD: What advice do you have now for law school students, whether or not they want to practice in employment law? JK: It is essential that you find a niche that makes you stand out. To excel, you need an expertise that places your name on the top of any list to get the job accomplished. There are many fine lawyers, but we are not hired because we are smart, or capable or nice. We are retained and continue to be so because we understand the specific issue, have experience in dealing with it hundreds of times, and can achieve a successful result. That comes from understanding the reason for the legal dilemma and the means to solve it. LD: Has your employment practice changed since the early part of your career? If so, how? JK: Absolutely. The most significant change is the pace of the practice of law. I used to enjoy thinking time, where I would set aside an hour each day to organize thoughts, plan business development opportunities, and review current cases. Today, that is still done, but on the fly. Receiving and answering about 120 emails a day changes the speed of work. You have to adjust accordingly. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/04/27/lawyerlimelight-jay-krupin.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
89
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Matthew C. Kane
McGuireWoods
Los Angeles
Lisa Lupion
Orrick
New York
Kevin Miner
Fragomen
Atlanta
Cindy Schmitt Minniti
Reed Smith
New York
Kristen A. Page
Shook
Kansas City, Mo.
Sarah Peterson
SPS Immigration
Minneapolis
Renee Phillips
Orrick
New York
Seth J. Safra
Proskauer
Washington, D.C.
Efrat R. Shulman
Jones Day
Chicago
Grace Shie
Mayer Brown
Washington, D.C.
Grant Sovern
Quarles & Brady
Madison, Wis.
Christopher A. Stecher
Keesal Young
San Francisco
Susan A.P. Woodhouse
Littler
San Francisco
Becki Young
Grossman Young
Silver Spring, Md.
Joshua Zuckerberg
Pryor Cashman
New York
2019: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Charles S. Caulkins
Fisher Phillips
Ft. Lauderdale
Vincent A. Cino
Jackson Lewis
Morristown, N.J.
William L. Cole
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
Los Angeles
Catherine A. Conway
Gibson Dunn
Los Angeles
Harriet E. Cooperman
Saul Ewing
Baltimore
Louis P. DiLorenzo
Bond
New York
Steven G. Eckhaus
McDermott
New York
Jerry M. Hunter
Bryan Cave
St. Louis
90
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
CHARLES FOSTER
BY ALISON PREECE
CHARLES FOSTER HAS BUILT A CELEBRATED
immigration and employment practice by working with a roster of international clients throughout decades of shifting immigration policies. Foster’s dedication to his work is matched by a commitment to giving back: Among many local and international works of service, he served as immigration policy advisor to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Chairman of Foster LLP, Foster received his JD from the University of Texas at Austin. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena? Charles Foster: The firm and I are dedicated to helping multinational corporations and organizations who seek to employ highly skilled foreign nationals obtain nonimmigrant work visas and permanent resident options worldwide – particularly in the STEM, energy, medical, educational, entertainment, and professional sports fields. We also help employers develop long-term immigration strategies and expectations to establish internal procedures to maintain immigration compliance. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? CF: I grew up along the Texas-Mexican border. It was in my DNA. I first developed an interest in Mexico, then Latin America, and finally the world and was determined to be an international lawyer. I quickly discovered the field of immigration law was the closest practice to fulfill my interest of working with international clientele in a complex, but well defined statutory and administrative area of law. LD: What do you like about your practice? CF: At times I’ve wanted to keep immigration law practice a secret because immigration is such a unique and complex area of law and you work with a highly motivated international clientele and at the same time there’s a significant public interest in U.S. immigration law and policy. LD: Is there a particular matter that stands out in your career thus far? CF: I knew at the time I was representing Chinese dancer extraordinaire, Li Cunxin, it would be a career defining case. When I was called upon to represent Li, when he was unexpectedly held at the Chinese Consulate in Houston, there were hours of negotiations with
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
Chinese officials into the wee hours in the morning. Fearing he would be put on an early morning flight out of the country, by 3:00 am I woke a Federal judge and spoke with the DOS China Desk officer and by 6:00 am made oral arguments to two federal judges on a loading dock behind the Federal Court House on complex issues of the court’s authority to restrain a consular official and to grant a writ of habeas corpus. By the time Li was allowed to leave the consulate as a free man, Li’s case was the center of worldwide television and journalism. I was not surprised that his story would later result in a book and award-winning movie “Mao’s Last Dancer.” LD: What trends are you seeing in immigration policies? CF: The biggest trend is one that has been woefully unreported and has a major impact on U.S. employers. Although it is recognized the Trump administration has taken tougher policies regarding individuals seeking entry without inspection as well as asylum seekers, what is under-reported is the Trump administration’s all-out effort to restrict legal immigration. The Trump Administration has taken significant steps to implement so-called “extreme vetting” under the “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and to “reform” the H-1B visa program. The Department of Labor (DOL) has increased H-1B audits and investigations for violations of the H-1B visa program. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is far more prone to challenge visa petitions on highly technical grounds
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
91
and to issue unnecessary Request for Evidence (RFE) and reversed long standing policy giving due deference to USCIS prior approvals. Unfortunately, these highly restrictive developments are just a preview of coming attractions, which will bring less certainty and more instability to businesses and foreign national employees and their families. LD: I’m sure you’re coming up with innovative solutions to these developments. Can you give us an example of the type of matters keeping you busy at the moment? CF: While U.S. employers have benefited substantially by being able to hire highly skilled foreign nationals from our universities with advanced degrees, given quota limitations, Indian and Chinese applicants face a lengthy waiting period for permanent residency. The problem is particularly acute with the numerical limitations on H-1B applicants, resulting in U.S. employers being unable to hire the most talented and skilled applicants. Because of these current backlogs, we have seen large numbers of Indian and other foreign nationals turn to the EB-5 investor program for a quicker path to permanent residency. I work closely with these foreign investors and entrepreneurs to develop a creative solution to gain proper work visa status in the United States. LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined for yourself while in law school? CF: Yes, I imagined I would be an international lawyer and naively assumed that immigration would be an essential component. Once I started with Reid & Priest, a large New York Wall Street firm, I soon discovered I was the only international lawyer who thought that way. However I was fortunate to be able to handle a growing number of immigration issues as part of my international practice first in New York and later with Bulter, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp in Houston, and then I opened and developed one of the country’s largest immigration practices in my own law firm. LD: Any advice for current law school students? CF: Get the highest grade possible to get the best job with the biggest law firm possible to get the best and most varied experience possible, and then follow your passion and interest. LD: Was there an early experience that helped shape the course of your professional life? CF: After I started University of Texas School of Law, I received notification I was a recipient of a Rotary Foundation Fellowship for graduate studies – one of the most generous and coveted programs, which allowed
92
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
me to study international law and live in the Republic of Chile for a full year. This experience of living abroad and having full immersion into the culture allowed me to learn Spanish, which has been an essential skill I’ve utilized throughout my career and helped me to secure my only two legal jobs outside my own law firm. LD: How has your employment practice changed since the early part of your career? CF: The biggest change is technology, going from carbon copies, to Xerox to faxes to emails to social media and the expectation of clients for immediate responses. Over the years, USCIS has been able to implement electronic filings online. These shifts in technology have dramatically changed the way the firm’s attorneys and myself operate and manage key clients. LD: What keeps you busy outside the office? CF: I’ve been extremely involved in the community, serving as Chairman of the Asia Society Texas Center for more than 20 years and leading the effort to build a $48.5 million home in our Museum District. I also initiated and headed efforts to build the George Bush Presidential Monument, James A. Baker Monument, Robert Mosbacher Memorial Bridge, and the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Monument in downtown Houston. For many years, I engaged in mountain climbing worldwide, until common sense and my wife made me retire. LD: Clearly you believe in giving back. What other pro bono or public interest activities are you involved in? CF: I’m involved in, at any given time, multiple probono activities in addition to the above. I’ve served as Chairman of the Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston, U.S.-China Partnerships and Americans for Immigration Reform, and on the Boards of a number of non-profit organizations, including the Houston Ballet, the Greater Houston Partnership, the Holocaust Museum Houston, KIND Houston Advisory Board, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Hobby Center for Public Policy, Barbara Bush’s Celebration of Reading, George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, and Invest in the USA (IIUSA). LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system? CF: Yes, my favorite movie and book has to be “To Kill a Mockingbird.” LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing? CF: I’d be a movie producer, as I would be able to take my interest in great stories, and bring them to the widest possible audience.
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
D. Ward Kallstrom
Seyfarth Shaw
San Francisco
Jay P. Krupin
BakerHostetler
Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey Londa
Ogletree Deakins
Houston
Stuart Newman
Seyfarth Shaw
Atlanta
Melanie Nussdorf
Steptoe
Washington, D.C.
Kevin O'Brien
Ivins Phillips
Washington, D.C.
Paul J. Ondrasik Jr.
Steptoe
Washington, D.C.
Denyse Sabagh
Duane Morris
Washington, D.C.
Richard C. Shea
Covington & Burling
Washington, D.C.
Charles R. Smith
K&L Gates
Pittsburgh
Steven W. Suflas
Ballard Spahr
Denver
Stanley Weiner
Jones Day
Cleveland
2018: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Paula A. Barran
Barran Liebman
Portland
Barbara Jean D'Aquila
Norton Rose Fulbright
Minneapolis
Kim F. Ebert
Ogletree Deakins
Indianapolis
Robert Fleder
Paul Weiss
New York
Josie Gonzalez
Stone Grzegorek
Los Angeles
W. Carl Jordan
Vinson & Elkins
Houston
H. Ronald Klasko
Klasko Immigration Law Partners
Philadelphia
Ira J. Kurzban
Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt
Miami
Donald R. Livingston
Akin Gump
Washington, D.C.
Steven McCown
Littler
Austin
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
93
NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Theodore Ruthizer
Kramer Levin
New York
Robert Siegel
O'Melveny
Los Angeles
Jonathan Sulds
Greenberg Traurig
New York
Marc Van Der Hout
Van Der Hout Brigagliano
San Francisco
A. Martin Wickliff Jr.
Cozen O'Connor
Houston
John Wymer
Sherman & Howard
Atlanta
2017: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Fred Alvarez
Jones Day
Palo Alto
Ned Bassen
Hughes Hubbard
New York
Greg Braden
Morgan Lewis
Washington
Lawrence DiNardo
Jones Day
Chicago
Brian Greig
Norton Rose Fulbright
Austin, Texas
Ellen Kearns
Constangy
Boston
John Langel
Ballard Spahr
Philadelphia
John Lewis
Baker Hostetler
Cleveland
Michael Lotito
Littler
San Francisco
Michael Patrick
Fragomen
New York
Lawrence Rosenfeld
Squire Patton
Phoenix
Bernie Siebert
Sherman & Howard
Denver
Richard Simmons
Sheppard Mullins
Los Angeles
Allan Weitzman
Proskauer
Boca Raton
Kirby Wilcox
Paul Hastings
San Francisco
94
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
JONATHAN SULDS
BY JOHN RYAN
IT’S ONLY FITTING THAT JONATHAN SULDS
is in the Hall of Fame of Lawdragon’s Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyer guide, given that he rose to prominence in the profession through the tutelage of the field’s most iconic figures. A New York-based Greenberg Traurig shareholder, Sulds never studied labor law during his legal education at Harvard but came to love a people-oriented practice that could have a broad impact on society. Sulds chaired the firm’s renowned Global Labor and Employment Practice from 2010 to 2018. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Jonathan Sulds: Generally, about 30% to 40% of my work has something to do with traditional labor law. I negotiate several collective bargaining agreements for employers each year, and provide strategies on other negotiations. Right now, for example, I am in the midst of various negotiations with a number of employers, including a national healthcare client, a national waste management company, and a local cultural institution. I also advise regularly on labor law aspects of corporate transactions and bankruptcies. We just finished a project laying out labor relations strategies for a quasi-public utility in a bankruptcy situation. And a segment of all this includes trial work before the NLRB and in arbitration. Another 30% to 50% of my time is devoted to employment litigation. I head up class and collective actions – and try wage and hours, harassment, discrimination, bonus, restrictive covenant and other similar cases to juries. Then, I also handle ERISA class actions; we just had the Fifth Circuit confirm dismissal of a stock-drop complaint. LD: What keeps you excited about the practice? JS: Our practice is about people – it’s endlessly interesting and challenging, just like people are, and the practice is really diverse. I try cases, argue appeals and stay up late at night telling jokes as I negotiate agreements. Every day has something new and every day I use different skill sets. That’s really cool. LD: What else do you find satisfying about it? JS: In labor and employment law you want to win your case. But cases are reflective of issues – fix
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
the issue and you avoid the dispute in the future. And finding ways to solve problems – given the various concerns and constituencies a workplace may house – is very satisfying. LD: How did you get into this type of practice? JS: Serendipity. On my second day in practice, I showed up for a breakfast meeting at 8:15 a.m. Bright eyed, ready to go. Except, the meeting had been rescheduled for 8:00 a.m. from 8:30 a.m.; and I had been “volunteered” for a labor project. Over the next several years, I had the incredible fortune to work with and learn from some of the really historic New York labor lawyers and labor leaders of the time. To name a few: Ed Silver, Howard Lichtenstein, Herman Cooper, Ted Kheel, Eric Schmertz, Judy Vladeck, Irwin Bluestein, Peter Ottley, Bill Kennedy and John Feerick. And I’ve had great colleagues throughout my career like Alan Jaffe, Bob Batterman, Allan Weitzman, Steve Tallent, Bill Kilberg, Dave Cathcart, Gene Scalia, George Salem, Don Livington, and Pete Zinober.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
95
OUR PRACTICE IS ABOUT PEOPLE – IT’S ENDLESSLY INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING, JUST LIKE PEOPLE ARE, AND THE PRACTICE IS REALLY DIVERSE. I TRY CASES, ARGUE APPEALS AND STAY UP LATE AT NIGHT AS I NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS. EVERY DAY HAS SOMETHING NEW AND EVERY DAY I USE DIFFERENT SKILL SETS. THAT’S REALLY COOL. I never took a law school labor law course. Archibald Cox was the legendary labor law professor when I was at Harvard, but he left to be Watergate Special Prosecutor before third year and I never studied with him; instead I learned labor law on the job from all those folks and more. Wonderfully, later on, I’ve had the chance to teach both labor law and administrative law at Cardozo as an adjunct and become the author of the Matthew Bender treatise, “New York Employment Law.” Really, I think that shows how law school can teach you how to teach yourself, especially if you have mentoring opportunties. LD: How did working with and around all those role models shape you? JS: The folks from older generations grew up when unions were ascendant both politically and in a number of venues. So, to achieve changes that became necessary, as industries or economic models evolved, what these folks collectively knew and practiced was they had to find common interests and common sources of pain or concern to pave the way for deals to be made. So, first there needed to be recognition how important to all – either for the common benefit or common avoidance of pain – a deal was, and then I learned from that group that those commonalities had to be deployed in a way and at a time to galvanize decision making. What I saw from Ted Kheel and Eric Schmertz when they mediated and what I learned by observing how others went about negotiations was a real master class. I’ve had the amazing good fortune to use those lessons in a range of matters that trace the arc of American industry changes in the last 40 years. Starting with the culmination of the New York City bankruptcy avoidance negotiations in the late 70s; through modifications in the delivery and manufacture of garments; to the New York milk industry end of licensing and national introduction of UHT [Ultra-High Temperature] pasteurization; through
96
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
the massive transformation of the newspaper/media industry; on to the current reformation of delivery modalities – with stops for changes in steel and auto and healthcare – with new issues from globalization; displacement involving benefits and their delivery; and the emergence of the gig economy, every one of these developments has brought new challenges to advising employers how to manage within the law. And I think the flexibility these folks had, as a pretty common trait, has been a really key example to me. It’s also a really important lesson to me that the practitioners I learned from were all strong litigators. That’s an essential part of the labor and employment lawyer tool kit. Reason does not always pave the way to agreements; so you have to have an understanding of what issues will and will not be favorably resolved in court or another forum, to understand leverage and formulate strategy. And I think that’s one of the most interesting aspects of labor law. Under the labor law, parties can try to harm each other – that’s what strikes and lockouts do. That is pretty singular in the civil law. So, at bottom, in that context, you are using the law and your skills to avoid the possibility of that harm. LD: Are there any developments you think will impact labor and employment law long term? JS: Twenty-first century work – how it is performed, where, how it is compensated, by whom – is profoundly different from the work from 50, 100 or more years ago. Robots, changing local protections for workers, information overload, new skills needed, all of it has profound impacts for the area. And we also have generational change. It will all drive new approaches. We’re working out of a model that began with guilds and the master/servant relationship. The next generations will write the story whether that model changes and if so, how. But, I think conflict and dispute resolution skills – identifying areas of overlapping interests and reasons why agreements are critical – will always be necessary.
2016: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Brian Clemow
Shipman & Goodwin
Hartford, Conn.
W. Melvin Haas III
Constangy
Macon, Ga.
Mark A. Hutcheson
Davis Wright
Seattle
Charles C. Jackson
Morgan Lewis
Chicago
Thomas G. Kienbaum
Kienbaum Hardy Viviano Pelton Forrest
Birmingham, Mich.
Thomas Y. Mandler
Hinshaw
Chicago
Armin J. Moeller Jr.
Balch & Bingham
Jackson, Miss.
Angelo Paparelli
Seyfarth
Los Angeles
James R. Redeker
Duane Morris
Philadelphia
Jeremy Sherman
Seyfarth
Chicago
2015: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
Jeff T. Appleman
Berry Appleman & Leiden
San Francisco
Lynne Deitch
Duke University
Durham, N.C.
Zachary D. Fasman
Proskauer
New York
Baruch A. Fellner
Gibson Dunn
Washington
James C. Franczek Jr.
Franczek Radelet
Chicago
Willis J. Goldsmith
Jones Day
New York
Hunter R. Hughes III
Rogers & Hardin
Atlanta
Stephen A. Ploscowe
Fox Rothschild
Morristown, N.J.
Ronald H. Shechtman
Pryor Cashman
New York
Gary R. Siniscalco
Orrick
San Francisco
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
97
2014: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
L. Robert Batterman
Proskauer
New York
Barbara B. Brown
Paul Hastings
Washington
Francis X. Dee
McElroy Deutsch
Morristown, N.J.
Mark S. Dichter
Morgan Lewis
Philadelphia
Charles C. Foster
Foster Quan
Houston
Howard Ganz
Proskauer
New York
William J. Kilberg
Gibson Dunn
Washington
Demitrios M. Moschos
Mirick O’Connell
Worcester, Mass.
Stephen A. Ploscowe
Fox Rothschild
Roseland, N.J.
Michael Reiss
Davis Wright
Seattle
Peter Wolfson Zinober
Greenberg Traurig
Tampa
2013: HALL OF FAME NAME
LAW FIRM
LOCATION
R. Lawrence Ashe Jr.
Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs
Atlanta
Austin T. Fragomen
Fragomen
New York
Alan V. Friedman
Munger Tolles & Olson
Los Angeles
Theodore R. Groom
Groom Law Group
Washington
Paul Grossman
Paul Hastings
Los Angeles
C. Lash Harrison
FordHarrison
Atlanta
Garry C. Mathiason
Littler
San Francisco
Bettina B. Plevan
Proskauer
New York
Patrick L. Vaccaro
Jackson Lewis
White Plains, N.Y.
Jay W. Waks
Kaye Scholer
New York
98
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
MARISSA HOLOB
BY JOHN RYAN
KRAMER LEVIN’S EXCELLENT REPUTATION
in the area of employment law owes much to Marissa Holob, who chairs the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits practice. Holob attended Cornell Law School after graduating from Brown University in 1997, and it was the luck of landing in legendary Professor Robert Summers’ classroom that set her on the path to her eventual career focus. Holob, a member of Lawdragon’s 40 Up and Comers in Corporate Employment Law, is poised to remain a practice leader for many years to come. Lawdragon: What do you focus on within your employment practice? Marissa Holob: My practice focuses on a broad range of executive compensation and benefits matters. I regularly counsel companies and senior executives on the design, negotiation, and implementation of executive compensation arrangements, including employment agreements, equity and equity based plans, nonqualified deferred compensation plans and transaction incentives. I also advise on compensation and benefits matters that arise in mergers and acquisitions as well as restructurings, both Chapter 11 and out of court. In addition, I represent companies and their retirement committees with respect to qualified retirement plans and welfare plans. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? MH: It is such an exciting area to practice in – I never know what the day will bring. And there are always new and interesting questions and issues that arise. LD: Was there an early experience that was key to how your career unfolded? MH: There are really two experiences that helped guide me toward my practice area. I was lucky enough to be assigned to Professor Robert Summers’ contract class at Cornell Law School. He was known for teaching in the Socratic method. I ended up loving the class – and his teaching methods! Not only was I fortunate enough to have Professor Summers for contracts but he also invited me to be his research assistant between my first and second year summer. His teaching really helped me to think critically and constructively. Immediately after law school, I clerked for the Honorable Judge Donald Pogue on the U.S. Court of International Trade. Clerking for Judge Pogue was an amazing experience. While clerking, I had the opportunity to work on a pension case during a circuit sitting. The case really
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
piqued my interest and Judge Pogue encouraged me to explore that area of law. After my clerkship, when I joined a firm, I immediately sought out the compensation and benefits department. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? MH: Find an area of law that you find interesting and exciting – we spend a lot of time at work and you should enjoy coming to the office each day. I consider myself privileged that I found an area of law that I still find exciting after all these years. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you think helps make Kramer Levin stand out? MH: What really distinguishes Kramer Levin is the people. We provide the big firm experience but are still small enough to really know your colleagues. It is a very collaborative and collegial firm – which not only creates a positive work environment but I strongly believe arrives at the best results for our clients. LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? MH: I love being an executive compensation and employee benefits attorney – and can’t imagine doing anything else!
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
99
“Winning means you’re willing to go longer, work harder, and give more than anyone else.” —Vince Lombardi
“Successful law firms, like the greatest sports teams, have the best talent, a clear vision and sense of purpose, and unwavering determination...” —Kay Hoppe From the beginning Credentia established a reputation as the best legal search firm in Chicago. This reputation has been strengthened over the last three decades as we have adapted our methodology and resources to meet new challenges in an ever changing and evolving profession. We developed a corporate culture based on hard work, careful listening and enough irreverence and non-conformity to be effective. We dedicated ourselves to the core aspects of our business: research, relationships and reputation. Our business is based on one simple principle: provide service of unexcelled quality. We would like to thank Katrina Dewey and Lawdragon for their efforts on behalf of the legal community. We are proud to have been chosen for their Global 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists.
CREDENTIA, INC.
100
THE WE ARE IN THE AGE OF LITIGATION FINANCE,
should you have any doubt. Want proof?
Burford, the $5B legal finance juggernaut, now works with 90 percent of the Global 100 law firms. With that kind of impact, it’s not surprising that it’s represented by eight of its stars on our fourth annual guide to the 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists. Key to that representation, as well, is the firm’s groundbreaking Gender Equity project, earmarking investment for litigation headed by women. And that’s another important facet of this year’s guide, which is 41 percent women. However, broader diversity remains a challenge – law firms and their advisors struggle for inclusiveness, a persistent problem for the industry. This year’s guide is, as always, chock full with the most brilliant crisis communicators, marketing mavens, management advisors and recruiters in the world. And, it’s worth noting the major shakeup underway in the recruiting world, where Jane Sullivan Roberts switched her practice from the historic Major Lindsey & Africa to the up and coming Mlegal. Missing from this year’s guide are the technology and litigation consultants who are becoming increasingly critical to law practice each year. They are getting their own guides in the future.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
101
100 FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION
LOCATION
CONTRIBUTION
Gerald Abila
Barefoot Law
Kampala, Uganda
Legal Entrepreneur - Technology
Jacob Aitken
Kidd Aitken
London
Media - Directory Maven
Scott Atlas
Atlas Counsel Search
Houston
Professional Recruiters
Divya Bala
Lippman Jungers
Los Angeles
Professional Recruiters
London
Litigation Funding
Jonathan Barnes
Woodsford Litigation Funding
Sharon Berman
Berbay
Los Angeles
Marketing & Communications
Dan Binstock
Garrison & Sisson
Washington, D.C.
Professional Recruiters
Eric Blinderman
Therium Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Eilene Bloom
Eilene Bloom Group
New York
Professional Recruiters
Christopher Bogart
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Amanda Brady
Major, Lindsey & Africa
New York
Professional Recruiters
Jocelyn Brumbaugh
The Brumbaugh Group
Chicago
Communications
Cari Brunelle
Baretz Brunelle
New York
Communications
Lori Carpenter
Carpenter Legal Search
Pittsburgh
Professional Recruiters
Christopher Catalano
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Allison Chock
Bentham
Los Angeles
Litigation Funding
Adrian Chopin
Bench Walk Advisors
London
Litigation Funding
Jeffery Commission
Burford Capital
Washington, D.C.
Litigation Funding
Tim Corcoran
Corcoran Consultant Group
New York
Management Consultant
Michael Coston
Coston Consulting
New York
Communications
Silvia Coulter
The Lawvision Group
Manchester, Mass.
Legal Consulting
102
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
100
MICHAEL NICOLAS
BY KATRINA DEWEY
THIS IS A STORY ABOUT THAT FLASH
of insight when intelligence, creativity, experience and a lot of hard work combine and a lightbulb goes off, as they say. Or, more accurately, turns on. Which is what happened when the attorney financiers of Longford Capital sought out an area in which to make a big impact in the increasingly competitive field of litigation finance. What Longford partner Michael Nicolas and the Longford team found was something right in front of their eyes: the untold riches generated in intellectual property by universities. And, to be precise, the need for financial resources to support protecting those assets without draining a university’s budget.
For one of their largest investments in the university field they underwrote – what else – litigation to protect that lightbulb, or more specifically a breakthrough LED filament that was allegedly being ripped off without proper compensation to the University of California at Santa Barbara, where it was created. Lawdragon: Tell me please how you came to focus on universities as a key component of Longford Capital’s litigation finance portfolio. Michael Nicolas: We focus on three areas of law at Longford Capital, which are the same areas of law in which our legal team has significant professional experience: first, commercial claims of all types; everything from large breach of contract cases, fraud cases, joint venture disputes, and the full panoply of commercial litigation claims. Second, we fund antitrust and trade regulation claims, as well as some international arbitration claims. Third, we fund intellectual property claims of all types, with an emphasis on patent litigation. A little over two years ago, we launched our university initiative, which provides financial assistance to universities to help them realize the full value of their research and development activities, largely through the enforcement of their intellectual property rights, without having to come out of pocket and burden their budgets. Over the last year, we have made a number of investments in the university space, including the UCSB matter. I believe that our hard work over the last two years has made us an industry leader in working with universities. LD: Can you talk a bit to the origin of Longford’s thinking about funding university patent claims? What led Longford to focus in this fascinating area?
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
MN: Our university initiative really began with a simple question: who are the most prolific creators of the intellectual property and life-changing inventions in the United States? The answer is universities. LD: So smart. MN: We viewed the area as an untapped resource of potential investment opportunities for us. We carefully studied the money being invested by universities in research and development nationwide. Using publicly available data, we determined that the top research universities in the United States collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year creating the inventions that change our lives. We also discovered that while universities spend a very significant amount of money on research and development, they often struggle to generate meaningful revenue from those research and development dollars. At the same time, public and private universities are facing more pressure than ever before to generate new sources of revenue to keep tuition and other costs in check. Litigation finance can help universities protect their valuable intellectual property rights while at the same time generating revenue that can be reinvested into the universities.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
103
100 LD: Broadly speaking, is it fair to say that the situation that you found was one where universities were allocating funds to the actual creation of intellectual property, but not so much to the enforcement of it? And therein lay the opportunity. MN: That’s right. As a general matter, universities do not spend significant time and resources enforcing their intellectual property rights. Rather, the mission of the university and its tech transfer office is to generate inventions, patent those inventions, and see that those inventions make their way into the public domain. On the other hand, Longford Capital possesses significant experience evaluating intellectual property claims and working with our clients to generate the highest value from their intellectual property rights. We thought that by bringing our experience and financial resources to universities, we could help realize the full value of their intellectual property rights. LD: How did you go about finding the right opportunities and the right universities that would be a good fit for Longford’s expertise and capital? MN: We are strong believers in building partnerships. What we’ve learned over the past two years is that the only way to identify, and ultimately pursue, valuable enforcement campaigns is to build strong partnerships with universities. We do this in multiple ways. First, we have wonderful relationships with the law firms with which we’ve worked for years, including during our careers practicing law at national law firms. Our law firm partners are trusted advisors to their university clients and are willing to introduce us to those clients because of the relationship of trust we have established over many years. Our law firm partners know that we will be good stewards of their client relationships and will bring value to their clients beyond the capital that we provide. Second, we focus heavily on educating universities about the services we offer. Our team spends quite a bit of time reaching out to the key decision makers within universities, including the general counsel’s office, the tech transfer office, and the C-suite to let those folks know what we do and how we can be a benefit to them. LD: Those are such thoughtful approaches, knowing the university structure inside and out. Any other approaches you’ve found helpful? MN: We also participate in university-related conferences and activities. The Association of University Technology Managers or AUTM is a perfect example. AUTM’s
104
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
membership is comprised of leaders in university tech transfer from throughout the United States, and a key focus of the organization is to educate its members on current developments in the world of university tech transfer. We are an active supporter of AUTM and a frequent speaker at their regional meetings. Finally, we believe that we are thought leaders in intellectual property monetization and university-related issues, and spend quite a bit of time writing and speaking on these issues. Our activities are very time intensive, but we love the results we are seeing. LD: So, you take a multi-pronged approach, and one that invests you very heavily in the university culture of intellectual property. So, taking for example your work with UCSB, and the filament lawsuit you’ve financed with them led by Nixon Peabody and its partner Seth Levy, is he someone you knew in advance? Or did you identify UCSB as a generator of intellectual property and then followed the chain to how they’re monetizing and protecting their IP, like a chicken and egg situation? MN: With respect to UCSB, my colleague, Russ Genet is a former partner at Nixon Peabody. Before he joined our company, he was the nationwide practice group leader of Nixon Peabody’s intellectual property litigation group. He had a long-standing and close relationship with Nixon Peabody generally, and with Seth Levy specifically. When we launched our university initiative, Seth was one of the first people we called because of his sterling reputation in the university space, and his strong relationships with a number of the nation’s top research universities. At the same time, we studied publicly available data to determine which research universities invested most heavily in research and development over the last five to 10 years. Our research revealed that the University of California System was one of the most prominent creators of intellectual property in the country. As such, they were a natural fit for us. LD: I’ve been a Californian a long time, and we’re pretty familiar with the riches of our UC system. MN: The other piece of the puzzle was the intellectual property itself. Our single greatest focus at Longford Capital is investing in what we believe to be the most meritorious legal claims. We feel that the LED filament technology developed by the Nobel-laureate led team at UCSB is literally world-changing.
100
LD: How does it work when Longford actually starts talking to the appropriate people within the university about using litigation finance? What is their reaction? MN: The discussion often begins with an explanation of our significant professional expertise in patent litigation and our extensive experience in intellectual property monetization. Russ Genet and Cindy Ahn are two shining examples of that expertise. Russ joined us after a 20-year career in patent litigation, most recently as the nationwide leader of Nixon Peabody’s intellectual property litigation group. Cindy Ahn also has 20 years of patent litigation experience and has served as General Counsel of a public company. The rest of our litigation team has at least ten years, and in my case over 15 years, of complex litigation experience. After discussing our backgrounds and experience, we next discuss our university initiative, and how we assist universities with monetizing their intellectual property. This often includes a discussion of the patents in the university’s intellectual property portfolio, and any past efforts by the university to license or enforce its intellectual property. The reaction we receive varies from university to university. Some universities have spent quite a bit of time analyzing, with the assistance of their counsel or outside consultants (or both), the most valuable assets within the university’s patent portfolio. Other universities seek our guidance on how best to strategically cull their intellectual property portfolios to identify the most valuable assets. LD: Is it fair to characterize the work that you’re doing with universities as – if not entirely the first time a university has thought about using litigation funding – still novel? That there’s an education component involved. MN: Yes, absolutely. We often speak with universities that have never heard of litigation finance. In those instances, the education curve is a bit steeper. That said, there is an ever-growing number of universities that have either heard us speak or read one of our publications, and have a base line understanding of litigation finance and the services we offer. Finally, we have spoken with a number of universities that have long track records of enforcing their intellectual rights and are exploring litigation finance as a way to monetize their intellectual property without burdening their budgets. The knowledge curve spans this entire spectrum.
LD: I would also suspect that one area in which universities might have developed a greater awareness is the push-pull of this. That traditionally, the university would have to allocate more funds for enforcement, but also the law firm would have to accept a lot of risk and expense that sometimes puts more pressure on the very teams that they want focused on going out and protecting their rights. MN: To me, this falls within a phrase we use daily at Longford Capital, which is “alignment of interests.” We like to think of ourselves as a bridge between our clients and their law firms that allows the entire team to move forward with perfectly aligned interests. In the past, when considering whether to enforce their intellectual property rights, universities were faced with a difficult decision: either pay the costs of the enforcement campaign themselves – costs that could easily run into the millions of dollars – or forgo the campaign altogether. Most universities lack the financial resources and internal expertise to pursue big-ticket litigation. Similarly, while many large law firms are willing to accept a modest reduction in their standard hourly rates, most firms are not comfortable taking cases, particularly complex patent cases, on a full contingency. Longford Capital acts as a bridge between the university and its law firm by paying a meaningful portion of the university’s attorneys’ fees and expenses, while structuring the transaction to align the interests of all parties involved. LD: I imagine there are many administrative hurdles to structuring a transaction with a university. What levels of approval must you navigate when negotiating a transaction with a university? MN: What we have learned – and it’s why this process is one that relies heavily on partnerships – is that every university has multiple layers of decision-making, including the heads of the tech transfer office, the general counsel of the university, the Chief Financial Officer and President of the university, and the offices of the Provost and Chancellor. Each of these individuals is responsible for different constituencies within the university and are important stakeholders in a university’s decision to enforce its intellectual property rights. Over the last two years, we have learned a lot about navigating the various levels of decision making within universities and have become a recognized, and I believe highly respected, presence in the university community. LD: Can you explain a bit more about the tech-transfer offices and the role they play in enforcement?
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
105
100 MN: Many tech transfer offices focus largely on licensing their university’s intellectual property to universitybacked startup companies with the hope that those startup companies attract the attention of larger industry participants. This process frequently takes many years and generates only modest revenue for the university. We’re helping universities to think differently, viewing their intellectual property as valuable assets capable of much faster monetization through effective enforcement. Also, because the primary goal of university tech transfer is to “transfer” the university’s technology to the world, we help universities understand that the quickest and most efficient way of transferring a university’s technology is by licensing that technology to large, existing U.S. companies that are best equipped to make the technology available to the public through licensed commercialization. LD: So, can we spend a little time talking specifically about UCSB and filaments? As you became aware of this technology and how it was not accruing to the benefit of the university that developed it, how was this campaign devised? MN: This is a campaign that was developed by Nixon Peabody and the outstanding team at UCSB. The process that they went through to prepare for and launch this campaign is set out in extensive detail at UCSB’s website filamentpatent.ucsb.edu. Nixon Peabody has a longstanding relationship with UCSB, including the university’s tech-transfer office and the Nobel-laureate led team that developed this technology. With the assistance of the university, Nixon Peabody carefully vetted the patents at the heart of the enforcement campaign and determined that they had significant value. One of the most compelling aspects of this enforcement campaign is that although the technology is extremely sophisticated, proving infringement is fairly straightforward. Nixon Peabody and UCSB identified a number of companies that were actively infringing UCSB’s intellectual property rights and those companies were named in the actions currently pending in the International Trade Commission and in United States district court. LD: So, a jury can see it with their own eyes? MN: Yes, they can. That said, before agreeing to fund this enforcement campaign, Longford Capital conducted its own rigorous two-stage underwriting process and concluded that the campaign was highly meritorious. Because we fund less than 5% of the matters presented
106
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
to us for investment, this was a very high bar to meet. We believe that this a very strong and valuable set of patents. LD: It’s also a very big damage profile. MN: That’s very true. There is no question that the infringing use of UCSB’s patented technology has exploded over the last several years and will continue to do so for years to come. We believe that this is world-changing technology and are proud to be supporting UCSB in its enforcement efforts. LD: That’s also your job, right? To find worthy claims, and ones that can bring significant returns to your business. That this fits so squarely within the university sector that you had focused on seems like the perfect storm, isn’t it? MN: As I said earlier, our greatest focus at Longford Capital is identifying what we believe to be the most meritorious legal claims for investment. That is certainly the case with UCSB, and we consider ourselves fortunate to be working with such an outstanding client and law firm. LD: What is the status of the claims now? MN: In late August, the International Trade Commission instituted a formal investigation of the infringements detailed in UCSB’s complaint. Simultaneous with the filing of the ITC action, UCSB filed lawsuits in United States district court alleging infringement of its patents by the parties named in the ITC action. Those lawsuits are currently pending. The ITC has set an accelerated schedule for the ITC action, meaning that there will be a lot of activity in the coming months. In addition, Nixon Peabody and UCSB have been approached by at least 50 companies, including many companies not currently named in the litigation, to discuss licensing UCSB’s technology without the need for protracted litigation. We believe that these discussions are a testament to the quality of UCSB’s patented technology, and a recognition of the seriousness of the campaign launched by UCSB and Nixon Peabody. LD: What is your involvement now that the claims have been filed? MN: Once we agree to invest, we are a truly passive investor, meaning that we have no control over the litigation or settlement decisions. Rather, all control of the litigation rests with UCSB and Nixon Peabody. That said, as we do with all of our investments, we will monitor the progress of the ITC action and the district court lawsuits, and will stay abreast of major developments in each case.
100
PATTY MORRISSY
BY ALISON PREECE
PATTY MORRISSY HAS BUILT HER CAREER
advising lawyers about their careers. Her long-standing reputation as a trusted career advisor to the legal community spans both the public and private sectors. Morrissy worked at two of the highest ranked law firms in the country, serving as Chief Recruiting Officer at both Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Weiss. She also worked as Chief Administrator for the legal department of a major investment bank. In the public sector, Morrissy was head of hiring for the Brooklyn District Attorney and Dean of Career Services at Cardozo Law School. These experiences have given her an expansive understanding of the legal hiring industry, making her immensely qualified to advise attorneys on their career paths. Morrissy is currently Managing Director at the legal recruiting firm Mlegal Group. Lawdragon: What area of recruiting do you focus on? Patty Morrissy: I focus on group and individual partner placements in law firms. LD: How long have you been in the field? PM: I have been a legal recruiter for more than 30 years, and have experienced legal hiring literally from every angle, including on the law firm side, in-house side, and public sector. LD: What do you like about working with lawyers? PM: I enjoy building relationships, and doing so with the smartest women and men out there is extremely rewarding. I love working with law firm partners in particular because their work is on the cutting edge of political, social and economic trends. Thus, I am always learning about new developments in an array of specialties; on any given day, I might learn, for example, about legal issues surrounding biosimilars or the impact of local laws on real estate finance.
LD: How has your profession changed since the early part of your career? PM: In the early days, when a lawyer wanted to make a lateral move in New York, there was essentially one respected recruiter, and you needed to have her stamp on your resume to be considered a viable candidate. Today, there are many more legal recruiters in New York so the industry is much more competitive. LD: How would you describe your style as a recruiter? PM: I have built my reputation on discretion, honesty, and professionalism. Both clients and candidates trust my advice. LD: What advice would you give partners in terms of how to most productively work with a recruiter? PM: Find the one recruiter you are most comfortable with, and only work with one. When your goals are aligned, you get better results.
LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in legal recruiting ?
LD: There are many high-quality recruiting shops out there. How is Mlegal unique?
PM: The traditional stratification of the legal market is being challenged as never before, and Mlegal is at the heart of some of the most interesting and complicated moves, not just in New York but also in London, Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C.
PM: Mlegal Group is unique because we work collaboratively across regions and share information with each. At other search firms, recruiters are not incentivized to work together. Our unique culture serves our clients and candidates better than any other search firm.
LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards this type of career?
LD: What do you do for fun outside the office?
PM: As an undergraduate, I had an internship as a probation officer, which definitely sparked my interest in the law.
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
PM: I love painting, especially portraits. I also love traveling, the theatre arts, dance, music, and of course, spending time with my family.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
107
100 FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION
LOCATION
CONTRIBUTION
Darryl Cross
HighPer Teams
Washington, D.C.
Management Consultant
Alex D'Amico
McKinsey & Co
New York
Management
Mestel & Company
Boston
Professional Recruiters
Lanny Davis
Trident DMG
Washington, D.C.
Crisis Communications
Marla Decker
Lake Whillans
New York
Litigation Funding
Melinda Delmonico
Gibson Arnold & Assoc.
Denver
Professional Recruiters
Jamie Diaferia
Infinite Global
New York
Communications
Lee Drucker
Lake Whillans
New York
Litigation Funding
Susan Dunn
Harbour Litigation Funding
London
Litigation Funding
Kelsey Eidbo
Infinite Global
San Francisco
Crisis Communications
Deborah Farone
Farone Advisors LLC
New York
William Farrell
Longford Capital
Chicago
Litigation Funding
Jeremy Fielding
Kekst
New York
Crisis Communications
Andrew Frank
KARV Communications
New York
Crisis Communications
London
Litigation Funding
Mary Rosenfeld D'Eramo
Steven Friel
Woodsford Litigation Funding
Marketing, Branding & Communications
Nick Gaffney
Zumado
San Francisco
Marketing & Communications
Joshua Galper
Trident DMG
Washington, D.C.
Crisis Communications
Jay Greenberg
LexShares
Boston
Litigation Funding
James Haggerty
PRCG Haggerty
New York
Crisis Communications
Phillip Hampton
LOGICFORCE
Nashville
Management – Technology
108
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
100
KAREN KAPLOWITZ
BY ALISON PREECE
A LONG TIME ADVOCATE FOR DIVERSITY
in the legal field, and something of a savant in fostering client relationships, Karen Kaplowitz is well positioned to advise a wide range of law firms and partners on crucial business-development tactics. She practiced as a trial lawyer for 25 years before founding The New Ellis Group in 1997, where she specializes in lateral integration and regularly coaches partners on leveraging their existing networks to help “make it rain.” Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide?
Karen Kaplowitz: I am a business development strategist and coach specializing in lateral integration for law firm partners. Law firms and individual partners retain me to help partners build their practices. I have worked with hundreds of law firm partners throughout the U.S. for over 20 years. My forte is helping partners apply the business development strategies they know about to their specific circumstances. LD: How did you first become interested in providing this type of professional service? KK: First I was a rainmaker myself while a trial lawyer in Los Angeles. I became Marketing Partner of Alschuler, Grossman & Pines, a very successful litigation boutique, which was at risk because one partner, Marshall Grossman, brought in most of the work. The firm had to increase and diversify the rainmakers in the firm and I became a leader of that effort. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What do you like about working with lawyers? KK: I love helping partners become more secure and more highly compensated. My role is to help lawyers understand their strengths, create strong game plans to build client relationships, integrate their business development efforts more easily into their work and lives and to make transitions to other firms more successful. Lawyers are great collaborators because they are inherently problem solvers. LD: Out of all the varied work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve worked on? KK: One of my own rainmaking successes led to the successful defense of Apple in a “bet the company” patent suit over one of the first software patents. Apple
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
hired my law firm to take over the lead on the matter two months before trial even though we did not have any experience with patent law or the technology. I brought in Apple as a client and then shared the credit for the work with the spectacular team of lawyers who turned around the case and brought it to a successful conclusion. LD: Are there any trends in the legal industry that you are seeing from your vantage point in terms of lateral hires? KK: There is a war for talent among law firms, which has heightened the importance of two areas in which I specialize: lateral integration and diversity. To remain competitive, law firms are investing more in retaining laterals and diverse lawyers. I work on strengthening lateral integration processes and providing coaching support to laterals, high potential partners, and diverse lawyers. LD: Can you describe a recent matter that you’ve handled? KK: Because of my extensive work with laterals for a decade, viGlobal, the leading HR software company for law firms, retained me to help design viIntegrate, its new lateral integration software. In addition to helping to design the software, I have collaborated with viGlobal to support its law firm clients as they implement viIntegrate to improve their lateral integration processes.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
109
100 The challenge to law firms is to use technology to improve their lateral integration process on a timetable and in a manner that will be accepted in the firm. Some firms start out with strong procedures and a culture of accountability for the success of laterals. Other firms use the adoption of viIntegrate to improve their process and improve accountability. I help firms to find the right balance for their specific circumstances. LD: Can you talk a bit about what makes lateral integration so essential? KK: Lateral integration and integration after mergers is of huge importance. Lateral partner attrition may be as high as 50 percent within five years of partners being hired. The financial losses to both law firms and partners are major; failed moves and mergers also derail careers. I am excited that the importance of lateral integration is becoming more widely understood. I have been working in this area for over a decade. Firms are now making more partners through lateral hiring than from internal promotions. It is an economic imperative for firms to take retention of lateral partners more seriously. I appreciate the opportunity to help firms reduce attrition. LD: Can you tell us more about your time as a lawyer, and how that led to your current work? KK: I was the third woman lawyer hired at O’Melveny & Myers in 1971, after graduating from the University of Chicago Law School. I left after three years to start one of the first women-owned law firms in Los Angeles with two other women lawyers. To survive, we had to bring in clients. After six years, I joined a 25-lawyer litigation boutique where I used my own rainmaking skills to help other lawyers in the firm. I became the firm’s Marketing Partner to reduce the risk that we were overly dependent on the firm’s senior partner. In 1997, I started a consulting firm, The New Ellis Group. I remained of counsel to the Alschuler law firm until 2007 when the firm merged with Bingham McCutchen. I have since worked with hundreds of partners in major firms around the country. Having worked at a very large firm, O’Melveny & Myers, a small firm of six lawyers, and a mid-size firm that grew from 25 to over 50 lawyers, I understand the challenges my clients face. I am also an expert at breaking down goals into concrete and manageable steps. I have written a widely read newsletter on business development strategy for lawyers since 2007. I am still a member of the California Bar. LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards this type of career?
110
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
KK: I have been a pioneer, thought leader, and activist throughout my professional life. Because I went to law school during the Vietnam War, I was in the first large wave of women law students at the University of Chicago Law School. With other women students, we sued the law school when it failed to ban law firms that discriminated against women students from recruiting on campus. Kaplowitz vs. University of Chicago is a landmark Title VII suit. I was the third woman lawyer at O’Melveny & Myers; the founder of one of the first women-owned law firms in Los Angeles; and the first woman partner at a successful litigation boutique in Los Angeles. Being a pioneer builds one’s muscle for innovation and problem solving! LD: Did you have a mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? KK: Many people have been mentors to me. As a law student, I worked for a brilliant public interest lawyer, Sid Wolinsky, who inspired me. Don Wessling was a University of Chicago Law School alum who recruited me to O’Melveny & Myers because he wanted to increase the number of women at the firm. When I started a women-owned law firm, my two partners were extraordinary teachers. I was 27 and single; Blanche Bersch was 39, married, with three children. She taught me that I could not be a cliffhanger if I wanted to have any work/life balance. My partner Marshall Grossman taught me the importance of excellence, consistent rainmaking and collaboration. My husband and business partner, Alan Cohen, enabled me to build a successful consulting business. LD: How has your profession changed since the early part of your career? KK: When I started The New Ellis Group in 1997, law firms did not have Chief Marketing Officers or people in business development roles. Firms now have substantial internal professional support for the work I do in business development, lateral integration and diversity. Some firms even have internal coaches. LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a strategist and coach? KK: Everyone understands the importance of business development, lateral integration and diversity, the areas in which I work. Lawyers often don’t understand how to apply what they know to their own circumstances. I specialize in helping people integrate their goals in these areas into their very demanding lives. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/12/02/legalconsultant-limelight-karen-kaplowitz.
100
ANDREW LONGSTRETH
BY ALISON PREECE
ANDREW LONGSTRETH HAS A LONG HISTORY
of creating content for lawyers. First as a journalist at The American Lawyer, where he helped create the popular Litigation Daily, and then on the Reuters legal beat, Longstreth has long had the keen ability to weave legal facts and trends into engaging narrative. He uses his journalism background every day in his current work creating legal industry content with Infinite Global, where he is Head Writer. Andrew has a B.A. from the University of Kansas. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry? Andrew Longstreth: I provide custom content services, including ghostwriting articles and authoring special reports, to lawyers and law firms. I also advise clients on media strategy. LD: How did you become interested in this work? AL: For many years, I was a legal affairs reporter – first at The American Lawyer and then at Reuters – and I got to know Jamie Diaferia, CEO of Infinite Global. When I was considering leaving journalism, I talked with him about what a career on this side would look like. Jamie, who is quite persuasive, painted a compelling picture. LD: What do you like about working with lawyers? AL: Working with lawyers means you’re always learning, which is professionally and personally satisfying. I also enjoy working with lawyers because they (at least the good ones) appreciate the importance of storytelling. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing these days? AL: The market for high-end legal services is not expanding like it once was, which has set up an intense fight for market share. That means that lawyers and law firms must focus intensely on distinguishing themselves from their competitors. One way to do that is through high-quality content marketing that provides valuable information to clients. Thankfully for me, that’s what I do. LD: Tell us about your prior life as a journalist. AL: I began my career at The American Lawyer magazine in 2001. At the time, I knew next to nothing about law firms and their work. But I was aware of the magazine’s proud journalistic history and the many great reporters who got their start there. Almost instantly, I fell in love with the subject matter. I stayed at the magazine for nearly 10 years, eventually becoming a senior writer and starting the Litigation Daily with Alison Frankel. My time at The
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
American Lawyer was a wonderful education, not only about the legal profession and the law, but about reporting, writing, and storytelling. The lessons I learned during that time are very much relevant to the work I do today. LD: Is this the type of job you imagined yourself having when you were younger? AL: I don’t think I ever imagined myself working in this field, but I always wanted a career in which I could continue to learn and feel engaged with big ideas and major issues confronting society. In that sense, it’s worked out quite well. LD: Can you discuss an important mentor? AL: Aric Press, the former editor-in-chief of The American Lawyer, had a big impact on my career. He taught me a lot about the fundamentals of journalism, as well as the importance of professionalism, work ethic, and maintaining a sense of humor. LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy? AL: I like to emphasize my commitment to understanding the work of lawyers. As a former reporter, I’m used to researching deeply, asking lots of questions, and demonstrating a fair amount of humility and skepticism in the process. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/05/19/legal-consultantlimelight-andrew-longstreth.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
111
100 FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION
LOCATION
CONTRIBUTION
Bruce Hennes
Hennes Communications
Cleveland
Crisis Management
Vivian Hood
Jaffe
Stephenville, Texas
Crisis Communications & Marketing
Kay Hoppe
Credentia
Chicago
Professional Recruiters
Marcia Horowitz
Rubenstein
New York
Crisis Communications & Marketing
Natasha Innocenti
Mlegal
San Francisco
Professional Recruiters
Rosemary Ioannou
Vannin Capital
London
Litigation Funding
Terry Isner
Jaffe
Stephenville, Texas
Crisis Communications & Marketing
Nancy Jessen
UnitedLex
Washington, D.C.
Legal Services Delivery
Mark Jungers
Lippman Jungers
Chicago
Professional Recruiters
Karen Kaplowitz
The New Ellis Group
New Hope, Pa.
Aaron Katz
Parabellum Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Jim Kearney
Lake Whillans
New York
Litigation Funding
Daniel Kidd
Kidd Aitken
London
Media - Directory Maven
Sanju Kripalani
Wicker Park
Portland, Ore.
Jeremy Kroll
K2 Intelligence
New York
Corporate Investigations
Nancy Lasersohn
Eilene Bloom Group
New York
Professional Recruiters
John Lazar
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Sabina Lippman
LIppman Jungers
Los Angeles
Professional Recruiters
Harlan Loeb
Edelman
Chicago
Crisis Communications
Andrew Longstreth
Infinite Global
New York
Crisis Communications & Marketing
Ellora MacPherson
Harbour Litigation Funding
London
Litigation Funding
112
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Business Development & Management
100
GULAM ZADE
BY ALISON PREECE
GULAM ZADE IS CEO OF LOGICFORCE,
a legal technology services firm headquartered in Nashville, Tenn. Zade joined the firm as general counsel, and previously worked in private practice doing bankruptcy and corporate insolvency work. He received his J.D. from Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the services that LOGICFORCE provides?
Gulam Zade: LOGICFORCE is a technology consulting firm that improves the profi tability and operations of mid-size law firms through the strategic application of technology. Our services include IT optimization, cybersecurity planning, management and incident response, eDiscovery management, and digital forensic investigations and collections. We support law firms across the country with a focus on the Southeast and Midwest, customizing our service delivery model to fi t each client’s business goals and requirements through a proprietary assessment process known as Synthesis E-IT Secure®, or SEITS®, which is the only IT tool of its kind for the legal industry. Based on our assessment, we supply the client with the appropriate best-in-class technologies, complemented by specially designed work processes that are supported on or offsite by our team of professionals. Our law firm partners pay a low monthly fee, effectively negating the need for any future capital expenditures and eliminating the possibility of technology obsolescence. Clients can expect measurable profi tability gains with a capacity to scale for work from their clients that was previously unattainable in their old model. We also ensure our law firm clients will not lose a client due to a failed data security audit. LD: What trends are you seeing in the industry that are affecting the work you do? GZ: The adoption of cloud services is a trend that is taking the legal world – and tech world at large – by storm. Cloud services drive efficiency, reduce costs, and increase security at law firms. While cloud usage in the legal industry continues to increase, many firms are wasting resources and money along the way because of poor planning and implementation. Law firms tend to make cloud purchasing decisions in silos without evaluating how to properly integrate
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
each cloud service offering into their current IT environment. LOGICFORCE is frequently engaged to help firms properly align their technology ecosystem with their business goals. This improves firm operating efficiencies, reduces costs, and provides predictability of annual IT spend. LD: What advice do you have for young professionals looking to build their careers? GZ: It’s important to never underestimate the impact that one person can have on your life when you’re least expecting it. Always strive to make a good impression because you never know how someone can help you in the future or vice versa. Five years ago, a sales rep I’d done business with before asked me to lunch. I agreed and thought his intention was simply to sell me services. During the meeting, he surprised me by offering me a role with LOGICFORCE. I’ve had an outstanding five years (and counting) because I said yes to lunch! LD: Do you have specific challenges or lessons that come from working with lawyers in tech? GZ: From my experience as both an attorney and executive in the technology sector, I have learned
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
113
100
IT’S IMPORTANT TO NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT THAT ONE PERSON CAN HAVE ON YOUR LIFE WHEN YOU’RE LEAST EXPECTING IT. ALWAYS STRIVE TO MAKE A GOOD IMPRESSION BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW HOW SOMEONE CAN HELP YOU IN THE FUTURE. that legal professionals can be stubborn, especially when it comes to adopting new technology. Law firms hold sensitive data that must be protected, and in the wake of many cyberattacks, it’s understandable why lawyers are cautious about technology. The law firms we work with demand evidence of top-notch security and results that can’t be refuted. Understanding this has helped us shape our business around the specific needs of law firms and ensure that their data security and operational efficiency are our top priorities. LD: What’s on the horizon with your firm? Any new innovations? GZ: LOGICFORCE will continue to help mid-sized law firms across the United States fully embrace the power of the cloud and specialized legal technology so they can achieve greater efficiency and profi tability. Our team has successfully developed a suite of services, including New Style of Legal IT®, or NSLIT, that is revolutionizing the way law firms utilize and pay for IT. We will continue to hone our services and ensure we’re offering the best technology available on the market. LD: There are many high-quality tech support firms out there. What’s the bottom line on how LOGICFORCE stands out? GZ: Since 1995, over 1,000 law firms nationwide have trusted LOGICFORCE to align their business and technology strategies to improve operating efficiencies, reduce costs and sustain predictable IT spend. As a result, our clients have seen an increase in billables, an improvement in margins as well as the ability to handle additional cases. LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities? GZ: Professionally, the biggest impact I have had on our community is making LOGICFORCE a place people want to work. It is extremely important that
114
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
we foster a culture that listens to employees, understands their needs and helps them reach their goals in and out of the office. Our most significant accomplishment is being voted one of Middle Tennessee’s Top Workplaces for the past three years, an award solely based on employee surveys. As our firm grows, we continue to prioritize and heavily invest in our team’s success, which has allowed us to build an award-winning culture and attract and retain world-class talent. I’ve also made my involvement in the community a priority by serving on professional boards that develop and advance young lawyers, including the Nashville Bar Association’s Young Leaders Division board. In my role as YLD president, I lead the annual Nashville mock trial competition for Davidson County High School students and Race Judicata, an annual 5K and 10K, which raises thousands of dollars for Able Youth and Achilles International Nashville. I chair the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s young leaders board and was named a Top 30 Under 30 award recipient in 2016 for professional and charitable accomplishments. Additionally, as co-chair of the Nashville Bar Foundation Leadership Forum, I lead a steering committee of attorneys from across Nashville that hosts a 9-month leadership program for young attorneys. The program offers innovative opportunities to learn, collaborate, network and serve the local community and the legal profession through monthly workshops and activities focusing on local legal and community issues. The NBF Leadership Forum encourages diversity in the practice of law and helps build relationships among attorneys with diverse backgrounds and practices. The attorneys that graduate from the program have gone on to hold leadership positions in their respective law firms, companies and communities as well as elected positions in Nashville.
100
KELSEY EIDBO
BY JOHN RYAN
INFINITE GLOBAL’S EXCELLENT REPUTATION
in the area of media relations and crisis communications is thanks in no small part to Kelsey Eidbo. The San Francisco-based senior client supervisor manages several of the firm’s accounts and also leads its intake and development process for producing “crisis communications playbooks” – so that clients are prepared when a data breach or other problematic incident arises. Eidbo enjoys the challenges of the evolving nature of her consultancy role and notes that law firms have come to understand the benefits of investing in communications strategies upfront. She has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from California State University, Chico. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers what your position is at Infinite Global? Kelsey Eidbo: My role at Infinite Global is to help professional services firms develop public relations programs that support their short- and long-term business development goals and to lead account teams that execute against these plans. I am also a part of Infinite Global’s Crisis Communications and Data Breach group, where I assist in advising firms on their communication strategy in response to crises and proactively develop crisis communications playbooks for firms that want to get ahead of potential incidents. LD: What do you find rewarding about your job? KE: I really enjoy the intake process and subsequent plan development with new clients, when we’re doing a deep dive to understand who the firm is, the various personalities involved, and what the firm’s goals are so we can develop an effective plan. Matching our media experience with the unique backgrounds of the lawyers we’re sitting down with produces really interesting stories and can bring fresh approaches to stories that have already been told. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in media relations or crisis communications? KE: I’d say there are three major trends that continue to keep us busy and are changing the way we work with and advise clients. The first is that most law firms are thinking beyond standard media relations to stand out in a competitive marketplace and crowded media landscape. Clients are developing infographics, videos and podcasts for their own websites and are excited about finding ways to repurpose those and extend their reach. Another is that more and more law firms are under-
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
standing the importance of preparing for a crisis well before it hits. At this point, there are too many headlines about their competitors, industry giants and household names facing crises, and law firms are realizing there is no excuse to not be prepared. Knowing who will be involved in crisis response, what types of threats you are most vulnerable to, and having a brief, standardized and tested approval process will help expedite crisis response and take part of the guess work out when you’re in the midst of an incident. We also recommend our clients have pre-approved media and communications policies and statements, so these are ready to go when a client or member of the media reaches out mid-crisis. Finally, the increased occurrence of data breaches continues to impact every aspect of our work. Clients are coming out with more innovative and interesting practice groups and service lines to help their clients prepare for and respond to data breaches and turn to us to help set them apart in an increasingly crowded industry. Of the crisis communications work we’re doing, the majority of the proactive work tends to focus on preparing law firms to communicate around data breaches, and we are frequently brought in to help with communications if one of their clients experiences a breach. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/11/17/ legal-consultant-limelight-kelsey-eidbo.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
115
100 FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION
LOCATION
CONTRIBUTION
Joe Macrae
Mlegal
San Francisco
Professional Recruiters
Vivek Maru
Namati
Washington, D.C.
Legal Services Delivery
Eleanor McManus
Trident DMG
Washington, D.C.
Crisis Communications
Bobbie McMorrow
McMorrow Consulting
Summerland, Calif.
Professional Recruiters
Deborah McMurray
Content Pilot
Dallas
Marketing & Communications
Jonathan Molot
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Patty Morrissy
Mlegal
New York
Professional Recruiters
Ellen Moskowitz
Brunswick
New York
Crisis Communications
Michael Nicolas
Longford Capital
Chicago
Litigation Funding
Kathy O'Brien
Rubenstein
New York
Marketing & Communications
Zach Olsen
Infinite Global
San Francisco
Crisis Communications & Marketing
Garrett Ordower
Lake Whillans
New York
Litigation Funding
Lloyd Pearson
393 Communications
Leslie Perrin
Calunius Capital
London
Litigation Funding
Peter Pochna
Rubenstein
New York
Marketing & Communications
New York
Communications
Allan Ripp
Ripp Media & Public Relations
Brighton, East Sussex, U.K.
Media - Directory Maven
Jane Sullivan Roberts
Mlegal
Washington, D.C.
Professional Recruiters
Gina Rubel
Furia Rubel
Doylestown, Pa.
Public Relations
Andrew Saker
Bentham
Perth, Australia
Litigation Funding
Julia Salasky
CrowdJustice
London
Legal Services Delivery
116
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
100
PHILLIP HAMPTON
BY JOHN RYAN
OUR GUIDE TO THE NATION’S MOST
trusted legal consultants and strategists has plenty of talented professionals who spent part of their careers as lawyers – or at least considered doing so. Phillip Hampton approached the legal space from a purely technological background, with a B.S. and M.S. in computer science and an early career in software engineering. In fact, the founder and chairman of LOGICFORCE believes that this personal focus and expertise helps underscore the credibility of his firm as an industry leader in technology consulting. Helping law fi rms meet their complex and constantly-changing technology needs has been the LOGICFORCE mission for more than 20 years. Lawdragon: Can you tell us a little bit about what LOGICFORCE does? Phillip Hampton: LOGICFORCE provides comprehensive information technology services for the legal industry. Our New Style Legal IT® (NSLIT) offering is a fresh approach for law firms looking to leverage advancements in technology not only to realize new operating efficiencies but also to significantly enhance business development for the firm. We provide a complete end-to-end Infrastructureas-a-Service (IaaS) solution for the law firm’s operating network. Our clients depend on us to maintain a safe, efficient, relevant, and up-to-date network that is predictable in cost and efficient in operation.
law firms of all sizes. For many years, as the legal technology space was developing, it was common to see law firms insourcing much of their infrastructure with a hodgepodge of outdated servers and software. As the space has matured and successful firms have realized the strategic advantage of new technology, we have seen more and more firms outsource the provisioning and ongoing guidance of their technology to experts in the field.
In addition, with our 20-plus years of experience in the legal space, we provide expert-level technology services for unique litigation technology needs. Our litigation support services include e-Discovery collections, processing, hosting, project management, and trial tech support. Our digital forensics lab provides expert-level forensic analysis and testimony for both large and small matters. We are a holistic solution for law firms that find it cost prohibitive to insource all the services that we provide or frustrating to evaluate and manage a shifting landscape of many vendors to supply these services.
Rather than just being a cost of doing business on a P&L statement, law firms have evolved to view their technology as a driver of new business and their technology provider as a strategic partner. As such, we partner with our clients to uniquely address their technology needs; our New Style Legal IT® program feels more like an insourced solution at an outsourced price, which is the best of both worlds.
LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your area of consulting or advising in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days?
PH: My educational background is in technology. I received a B.S. degree in computer science and mathematics and an M.S. degree in computer science. This educational background was important in bolstering my credibility at the beginning of my
PH: We are definitely seeing a trend toward more outsourcing of all facets of the IT infrastructure for
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
LD: What was your educational focus or early career path that prepared you for your role at LOGICFORCE?
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
117
100 career. Additionally, these credentials were important later in my career to qualify me as an expert witness for computer-related investigations and testimony. Equally important as my scientific education background, however, is the well-rounded liberal arts curriculum I took as an undergraduate. The ability to think critically, communicate and write effectively has been a significant factor in successfully building consulting relationships with legal professionals. My early career was in software engineering and I eventually moved into database administration, project management, and departmental management. My foray into the legal space was almost accidental as the first client of my solo consulting career happened to be a law firm. The timing of this first engagement was fortuitous in that it was at the very beginning phase of the seismic growth that would occur in the legal tech space. LD: Did you have a mentor who was important to the development of your professional life? PH: An early mentor who had a large role in shaping the course of my professional life and business was actually my first client. He was the partner in charge of technology at the first law firm that I had a contract with. Although he was an attorney, he also had training in electrical engineering as an undergraduate and was prominently known in our region as the resident expert on all things related to legal technology. He hired me because he became frustrated with managing the firm’s technology while maintaining a heavy case load of complex litigation. He introduced me to many other attorneys and firms in the region and allowed me to share the stage with him for numerous CLE seminars and other speaking engagements. More importantly, he believed in me and my ability to solve complex problems, even when I had doubts about myself. The opportunity he afforded me and the encouragement he provided as I was trying to get my consulting business off the ground were invaluable. He is a valued friend and mentor to this day. LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as especially memorable? PH: One of the more memorable matters that we took on was for a law firm whose corporate client was facing a federal criminal investigation, class action lawsuits, and a myriad of other matters stemming from an initial FBI investigation. Our task was to collect, process, host, and manage all the dis118
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
covery data for the various parties involved in the case. The amount of data that had to be collected and processed was huge and involved tens of millions of records. And, as is common in this type of litigation, the delivery deadlines were always aggressive. Beyond just the technical requirements for this multi-year project, the management of the data needs for many different parties – attorneys, executives, auditors, investigators, DOJ personnel – with different interests was a challenge we accepted and successfully navigated. LD: What do you think makes LOGICFORCE unique? PH: First and foremost, we are a technology firm. Over the years, I have watched other companies evolve to service the burgeoning legal tech space by adding on technology services to an existing non-tech business model. Many were chasing quick profits or just trying to diversify in a market that was rapidly changing. Our core business has always been technology. We have been focused on technology for the entire 20-plus years of our existence. We have grown up with the legal tech industry. Many of the services we provide today are radically different from what we provided 10 or 15 years ago. Five years from now, we know the legal technology landscape will be much different. As a result, our business model is always evolving to introduce best innovations, best practices, and best of breed technology to ensure that our clients are on the forefront of tech preparedness. This organic approach to the market has and will continue to be a unique advantage for us. LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities? PH: I serve on the boards of several non-profits, one of which is a transitional housing facility for men who are reentering society after incarceration. This work, along with my involvement in many activities at my local church, fuels me with a sense of purpose that is bigger than myself. Mentoring others is a path that I have taken as I have gotten older and, hopefully, wiser. I have enjoyed mentoring other young entrepreneurs in whom I recognize that spark of creativity, fear, and adventure that started my own quest to build a business. It has also been rewarding to mentor and counsel people who may have fallen but have the faith and fortitude to get back up and, in many cases, start all over. “Quit” is not in my vocabulary; and I love sharing that optimism for the future with everyone I meet.
100
DIVYA BALA
BY ALISON PREECE
DIVYA BALA IS A SENIOR MANAGING
Director at Lippman Jungers, the legal recruiting firm formed by Sabina Lippman and Mark Jungers in 2011. Bala has found success in this competitive field by developing a deep institutional knowledge and maintaining relationships throughout the industry, treating each interaction as a learning opportunity. She has a law degree from Saint Louis University. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the work you do with Lippman Jungers? Divya Bala: I started with Lippman Jungers in 2013 and never looked back. My first full year was 2014 and even through a short maternity leave, I closed a couple deals. Since then, I have been more productive every year. I learned very early on from Sabina the importance of maintaining productivity standards and really sticking to that formula every year. We are experts on market trends and have firms who call us just to have strategic conversations on achieving short and long-term success in particular markets and practices. LD: How would you describe your style as a recruiter? DB: Sabina is very systematic in her approach whereas Mark is more social in his way of working with candidates. My style falls somewhere in between. I am a hybrid of the two but have learned so much from their deep institutional knowledge of firms across the country. LD: How do you stand out in a crowded field? DB: I have heard from numerous candidates that my perseverance is what made them return my call, but I also really try to get to the crux of what makes each person tick. LD: What trends you are seeing in the industry these days? DB: When I first started in 2013, it seemed like all anyone could speak about was corporate, especially private equity. Every firm would call us asking for the corporate partner with a big client following. Now the pendulum is starting to swing and although a lot of firms still want corporate, we are getting asked for litigation partners and trial lawyers again. LD: How did you first get interested in legal recruiting? DB: After graduating law school and working for the public defender’s office, I was ready to find my next job and knew that I wanted to do something different, potentially related to legal consulting. I had no idea that legal recruiting was an option. I ended up working for a large
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
recruiting company recruiting attorneys for five years. I found myself in a management position surrounded by female mentors with rich backgrounds. It was the best training possible because in those five years, I learned how to cold call, hit large call volume targets, identify trends in the legal market, and how to talk to virtually anyone within the hierarchy of law firm partnership. I learned from every attorney and partner I spoke to and formed deep personal relationships with a number of attorneys in Los Angeles. I was ready for my next challenge and wanted to get into partner recruiting specifically. I spoke to a female partner friend of mine who advised that if I wanted to get into partner recruiting, I should speak to Sabina Lippman. After working on a search together and a few meetings with her and her partner Mark, it became clear that they were the best in the business… by a wide margin. LD: What do you find satisfying about this work? What keeps you excited about it? DB: I have always liked being a problem solver. In the case of recruiting, many partners do not yet know or investigate the market enough to understand they are being undercompensated or that there is another platform on which they could build their practices much more effectively. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon. com/2019/11/30/legal-consultant-limelight-divya-bala.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
119
100 FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION
LOCATION
CONTRIBUTION
Dawn Schneider
Schneider Group Media
New York
Media & Communications
Howard Shams
Parabellum Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Anita Shapiro
PLI
New York
Continuing Legal Education
Martha Ann Sisson
Garrison & Sisson
Washington, D.C.
Professional Recruiters
Michael Sitrick
Sitrick and Company
Los Angeles
Crisis Communications
Emily Slater
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Natahaniel Slavin
Wicker Park
Ralph Sutton
Validity Finance
New York
Michael Talve
The Expert Institute
New York
Burton Taylor
Proventus
Chicago
Mehrnaz Vahid
Citi Private Bank
New York
Max Volsky
LexShares
New York
Litigation Funding
Boaz Weinstein
Lake Whillans
New York
Litigation Funding
Mark Wells
Calunius Capital
London
Litigation Funding
Keith Wetmore
Major, Lindsey & Africa
San Francisco
Professional Recruiters
Aviva Will
Burford Capital
New York
Litigation Funding
Paul Williams
Major, Lindsey & Africa
Chicago
Professional Recruiters
Katharine Wolanyk
Burford Capital
Chicago
Litigation Funding
Louis Young
Augusta
London
Litigation Funding
Gulam Zade
LOGICFORCE
Nashville
Management – Technology
120
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Newport Beach, Calif. Litigation Funding
Professional Recruiters
100
RALPH SUTTON
BY ALISON PREECE
RALPH SUTTON WORKED FOR NEARLY
two decades as a trial lawyer before becoming a leader and an innovator in the litigation finance industry, first at Credit Suisse and later as Chief Investment Officer at Bentham IMF. Today he is the founder and CEO of Validity Finance, a litigation finance company focused on the U.S. market. He is a graduate of New York University School of Law. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the type of service that your firm provides? Ralph Sutton: Validity is a provider of legal finance. We offer companies and law firms the financial resources they need to pay legal fees and keep their businesses operating smoothly during lengthy legal battles. Clients use the capital to pay for some or all of the cost of the litigation, such as attorneys’ fees, discovery expenses, expert-witness fees, and court costs—or even to keep the lights on and the business running as they litigate their case. LD: What first drew you to this type of work? RS: The legal finance industry in the U.S. is about 13 years old, and I was fortunate to be involved right from the start. I clerked for a federal judge after I graduated from law school, and then I spent 18 years as a trial lawyer. That experience showed me what a significant role money played in the outcome of disputes. The better-resourced party had an enormous advantage, regardless of the actual merits of the case. That’s not how our system is supposed to work. The market began to realize that litigants were ready to share risk. In 2006, I left my practice to co-found Credit Suisse’s Litigation Risk Strategies Group, one of the first dispute funding entities in the U.S. It has been a labor of love ever since. LD: What do you find professionally satisfying about providing legal financing? RS: Access to the courts is imperative in a democratic society, and I believe funding has an increasing role to play in providing that access. I founded Validity to make sure clients can hire the best lawyers to take on the best cases, and help fix a broken legal system. Beyond that, I am a former trial lawyer and my team consists of almost entirely trial lawyers. Many have been law clerks to federal judges. We enjoy the rigor of legal analysis and our ability to bring strategic thinking to a dispute. We still help lawyers
PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM
and clients, but now the legal analysis is enhanced by our understanding of the business aspects of a case. The combination of litigation and business is refreshing and challenging. LD: It’s still a young industry, but are you seeing any trends in legal financing these days? RS: Definitely. First, demand for legal finance is growing quickly. Both law firms and clients are beginning to realize that it can be a great way to fund expensive legal fees, stabilize cash flows and share some of the risk inherent in the litigation process. We have seen growth in the types of cases and in the size of cases in the past couple years. At the moment, most of the cases the industry funds are plaintiff-side. However, we are definitely seeing tremendous interest in funding of defense cases. At Validity we offer a number of defense-side solutions, and we expect that demand for them will continue to grow. LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy with this type of service? RS: We always put clients first. At Validity, we understand a funding relationship needs to start with trust so we consistently aim to be open, transparent and accountable to our clients at every stage of the
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
121
100
WE OPERATE ON A VERY SIMPLE PREMISE, WHICH IS THAT DISPUTES SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS AND NOT ON WHO HAS THE DEEPEST POCKETS. process. We only hire people who are dedicated to delivering that kind of bespoke client service, and we are building trust with our clients and their counsel day by day, case by case. LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with a litigation finance firm? RS: First of all, it’s essential to be comfortable with your choice of funder. You will never be able to work productively with someone if you doubt their expertise, ethics or commitment to providing you with top-notch service. We have found that clients generally prioritize a sense of trust and ease of transaction over price. A litigation finance deal isn’t — and shouldn’t be — a race to the bottom. But there are basic things you need to look for when choosing a funder. First, the funder needs to be sufficiently well-capitalized to provide the money you need. Second, they need to have experience both as litigators and as funders. Understanding how to finance cases is a different skill set than understanding how to litigate cases, and in my opinion you need both. Third, you should look at their funding documents to ensure they are written in plain English, and that the funder doesn’t claim the right to control your legal strategy or settlement decisions. Many funders claim they don’t do that, but then insert clauses in the funding agreement that give them leverage to dictate terms later in the game. Once you’re comfortable with the basics, it becomes a question of whether your funder adds value and builds trust. Does she understand the issues you’re litigating? Does she have a collaborative attitude? Does she answer your questions and make suggestions that you find helpful? Some of our clients like to use us as a sounding board as they develop their strategy and arguments. We welcome that. Every time we talk to a client, our goal is to help them get closer to their desired outcome. LD: This type of work is becoming a real gamechanger in the broader legal industry. Can you speak 122
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
to what makes this work so innovative for lawyers and their clients? RS: We operate on a very simple premise, which is that disputes should be decided on their merits and not on who has the deepest pockets. Our goal is to liberate our clients from cost constraints to the extent possible. For companies that means they can pursue the litigation strategy of their choice and work with outstanding professionals and experts. For lawyers it means they can focus on doing what they do best, which is advocate for their clients. LD: Why did you decide to go out on your own and found Validity rather than stay with another company? RS: I spent six years at Bentham IMF, which is a commercial litigation funder based in Australia. I left to start Validity because Bentham is managed from another country. I wanted the U.S. market to have a funding company that was run by Americans, tailored to the needs of American clients, and based here. Focus matters a lot. We can be more nimble in our solution development, more responsive to clients, and more aligned as a company because of that focus. LD: Do you have a favorite book about the law? RS: That’s a hard one. I’d have to say “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson. It’s a short story about a small town which, in lieu of having a court system, holds a lottery once a year to randomly choose someone to be stoned to death. The implicit deal is that everyone will behave themselves all year, and then vent any pent up anger or revenge instinct in this one brutal ritual. Apparently the New Yorker got a lot of hate mail when they published it in the 1940s, but I think it makes an important point. Every society needs to have a mechanism for dispute resolution. Our system is based on reason and objective measures of fairness. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s one of the only things standing between us and some very unpleasant alternatives. LD: If you weren’t in your current job, what would you be doing now? RS: Reading books on the beach in Mexico.
15
JOIN US IN CELEBRATING
lawdragon.com
YEARS
OF EXCEPTIONAL LEGAL JOURNALISM
500
Hall of Fame Lawdragon launched the Hall of Fame component to our Lawdragon 500 guide in 2015. In the Hall of Fame’s fifth year, we added 41 lawyers to the permanent group of honorees, including renowned law firm leader and litigator Linda Addison of Norton Rose Fulbright. Additions also include leaders of complex corporate transactions, the plaintiff bar, our judiciary and the public interest world.
PHOTO BY: JENNIFER POTTHEISER
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
125
500
Nancy Abell - Paul Hastings Abell has been one of the nation’s top corporate employment lawyers for decades, leading her firm’s global practice, litigating the most pressing issues of the day, and breaking barriers through the UCLA Law Women LEAD effort she co-founded. Linda Addison - Norton Rose Her career has included remarkable achievements, serving as the first woman editor of the University of Texas Law Review; lead counsel in more than 50 trials; the leader of Norton Rose U.S.; and Founding President of the Center for Women in Law. Corinne Ball - Jones Day Ball’s work in bankruptcy law is unsurpassed, leading Chrysler through its successful Chapter 11 reorganization and the City of Detroit in its restructuring. She heads Jones Day’s New York Restructuring & European Distress Investing practices. Charlene Barshefsky - WilmerHale WilmerHale’s senior international partner has made remarkable contributions to global business and international relations, as the U.S. Trade Representative who negotiated China’s historic entry into the WTO. Hilarie Bass - Bass Institute for Diversity & Inclusion The longtime leader of Greenberg Traurig rose to presidency of the ABA and now leads the Bass Institute, which she founded to increase women in senior management and diversity throughout organizations. David Beck - Beck Redden The much-admired leader of the Texas trial bar has been winning the biggest verdicts for more than 50 years while serving as a steadfast supporter of the University of Texas Law School and illustrious trial bars nationwide. Philip Beck - Bartlit Beck What to say about the trial lawyer who secured the George W. Bush presidency and a record-setting award for a wrongly convicted man – while building a firstrate firm and serving up victory after victory for corporate clients?
126
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500 Candace Beinecke - Hughes Hubbard She smashed barriers in law by becoming the first female chairperson of a major New York firm while building an elite practice and securing serious corporate and philanthropic leadership posts. David Berg - Berg & Androphy This author’s personality is almost as large as his estimable record of success, from a U.S. Supreme Court victory when he was 28 to countless wins at the outstanding firm he built. John Branca - Ziffren Brittenham He is the Lawdragon Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame: The Doors, Aerosmith, the Beach Boys, Dr. Dre, Carlos Santana, Elton John, the Rolling Stones, the estates of Elvis and Janis. Hall of Fame Acts: 30. Music publishing dollars: Billions. Dale Cendali - Kirkland From J.K. Rowling to Oracle, Converse to Otter Box, Cendali has been the go-to litigator for the highest of high-profile intellectual property disputes, forging a trail for women lawyers in the field and at Kirkland. Jay Cohen - Paul Weiss A top litigator for more than 30 years, Cohen made his mark in high-profile litigation and corporate guidance for clients from Citigroup and Time Warner to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Nina Cortell - Haynes Boone This Texas trial lawyer wins for big corporations and has been tops at Haynes & Boone for more than 40 years; she is among the remarkable women alums of the University of Texas Law School, and a founder of its Center for Women in Law. Scott Edelman - Milbank Edelman has led a resurgence as Chairman of Milbank while leading high-profile, high-stakes litigation over music rights for Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), Citi Global Markets and Cerberus Capital Management.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
127
500
Dianne Elderkin - Akin Gump A rare registered patent lawyer awarded membership in elite trial lawyer organizations, Elderkin has been at the top of the list for complex biotech disputes worth billions. Parker Folse - Susman Godfrey An ace trial lawyer in the Susman full house, the onetime Rehnquist clerk and Seattle office anchor is noted for his massive intellectual property, antitrust and financial litigation victories on behalf of Alaskan fishermen, tech entrepreneurs and investors. Robin Gibbs - Gibbs & Bruns Among the most admired trial lawyers, Gibbs and his superb litigation firm have made a huge impact across financial, energy, construction and technology cases on both sides of the “v.” Patricia Glaser - Glaser Weil Among the nation’s most feared advocates, Glaser shattered more than a few ceilings as a tenacious trial lawyer and law firm leader while serving as a dedicated philanthropist for theater, The Hebrew University and many other organizations. Jamie Gorelick - WilmerHale The much-respected head of regulatory & government affairs at WilmerHale crafted remarkable expertise as General Counsel of the Department of Defense before serving as the Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Stuart Grant - Grant & Eisenhofer Quite arguably the most successful plaintiff securities litigator in Chancery court, Grant built a remarkable firm before going to pasture – as a race horse owner! He now works chiefly as a litigation financier with Bench Walk Advisers, which he founded. Eric Holder - Covington & Burling The highly regarded Obama Attorney General was the first African-American to hold the post and now is an in-demand Covington partner, representing everyone from Microsoft to California, in its battles with the Trump Administration.
128
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Stace Kanter - Skadden The longtime Skadden partner made her mark on enormous deals for clients including Rite Aid, Realogy and Pfizer, serving as head of the Global Markets Practice and the firm’s Diversity initiative. David Kappos - Cravath One of the world’s foremost authorities on intellectual property, this vaunted Cravath partner got his start at IBM, rising to head the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, where he led an overhaul of operations and legislative reform. Anthony Kennedy - U.S. Supreme Court The longtime center of the U.S. Supreme Court made his mark voting conservative on most business issues while recognizing individual freedoms, including marriage equality. After his 2018 retirement, he’s teaching again at McGeorge Law. Thomas Kennedy - Skadden This brainy M&A lawyer helps clients from Tumi to Sprint Nextel, and NTL Incorporated to the Dolan Family in their biggest deals while heading Knowledge Management for the global powerhouse firm. Carolyn Lamm - White & Case Among the world’s most distinguished international arbitration lawyers, Lamm has made her mark resolving global corporate disputes in a host of arbitral bodies worldwide, while also serving as an ABA leader. Judy Livingston - Kramer Dillof The first woman admitted to the exclusive Inner Circle, she has won 34 verdicts of more than $1M and helped achieve payments of more than half-a-billion dollars to clients with medical malpractice and personal injury claims. Patrick McGroder - Beus Gilbert The Buffalo, N.Y. native’s passion for social justice propelled him to great success helping injured consumers, including the families of firefighters and police officers, winning more than $600M and demanding change from those responsible.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
129
500
Roger Meltzer - DLA Piper A highly regarded dealmaker as a lawyer, he’s assembled one of the world’s largest law firms, with offices in 40 countries, and now serves as New Yorkbased global co-chair. Thomas Moore - Kramer Dillof The plaintiff’s lawyer whom other plaintiff’s lawyers call when they need help: He’s won 92 verdicts of more than $1M and achieved settlements exceeding $1B, yet the title this Inner Circle member holds most dear is husband of Judith Livingston. James O’Callahan (1956-2019) - Girardi | Keese A wonderful advocate for injured consumers in Los Angeles, the longtime Girardi | Keese partner was admired by lawyers and judges alike for his wit, wisdom, warmth and compassion. C. Allen Parker - Wells Fargo This wry and witty dealmaker is among the most admired lawyers in the country, serving as Presiding Partner of Cravath before joining Wells Fargo as general counsel and interim CEO. Kathleen Flynn Peterson - Ciresi Conlin She used her formidable expertise as a registered nurse to achieve justice for consumers injured in the healthcare system, winning millions for birth injuries, botched operations and other medical negligence. Miles Ruthberg - Latham A longtime Latham leader, Ruthberg excels at the highest-stakes lawsuits, obtaining dismissals at trial of securities claims valued at $4B and handling more than 100 claims involving accounting and financial issues. Shira Scheindlin - Stroock She earned great admiration during her 22 years as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, and now is much in demand to resolve private disputes and weigh in on mock arguments.
130
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500 Robert Schumer - Paul Weiss The longtime M&A lawyer and Paul Weiss mainstay has handled numerous high-profile deals for Time Warner entities, Kate Spade and Oak Hill Capital Partners, among many others. Lawrence Sucharow - Labaton Sucharow A leader in the plaintiff securities litigation and class action bar, Sucharow has brought hundreds of cases, recovering billions for investors as well as injured consumers in the Big Tobacco and Volkswagon Clean Diesel litigations. Stephen Susman - Susman Godfrey The iconic Susman conceived of a plaintiff financial litigation firm that shared risk with clients; built that eponymous firm into the most highly regarded lawyers corps in the country; won billions; and still regularly rides his bike 20 miles up a mountain. David Tolbert - International Center for Transitional Justice An impassioned and resolute advocate for global justice, Tolbert has devoted his career to fostering a path forward after conflicts and massive human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia and Lebanon. F. Joseph Warin - Gibson Dunn The master of white-collar work amassed expertise prosecuting more than 50 trials as a U.S. Attorney; he’s since overseen a vast range of FCPA and other claims in 40 states and dozens of countries. Seth Waxman - WilmerHale The former Solicitor General is among the crème de la crème of U.S. Supreme Court advocates, winning rights for Guantanamo detainees; a ruling to outlaw the death penalty for juvenile offenders; and victories for business clients.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
131
500
500 in high-profile cases, including 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hot Shots, a team of firefighters who perished during a 2013 wildfire, winning compensation for their families and prompting new safety procedures for battling such blazes. He settled a landmark case against Ford Motor Co. over police interceptor vehicles that burst into flames upon rear impact during car crashes, prompted by Phoenix police officer Jason Schechterle’s near-death in a March 2001 accident. There were 18 such cases across the country that he and David Perry litigated. The case ultimately led to the carmaker’s modification of 350,000 vehicles. McGroder made his mark in complicated high-profile cases, all involving catastrophic injuries and product liability – most with a social justice component. His accomplishments and dedication to have an impact helping attain justice for victims – as well as his philosophy burnished in his Buffalo, N.Y., roots – have made him one of Arizona’s most acclaimed trial lawyers and a member of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. “I gravitated to those types of cases, and I was very fortunate to have a staff and lawyers to work with me that subscribed to my commitment to humanity, to social change,” he says. “Virtually all of my cases involved some type of remedial change to not only make the world a better place, but to make it a safer
PATRICK M C GRODER place and to ensure that tragedies like I’ve seen, preventable tragedies, don’t happen again.”
BY KATRINA DEWEY PATRICK MCGRODER’S GRADES IN LAW SCHOOL weren’t the sort that attracted offers from high-end firms. Struggling to find a job after earning his law degree, he eventually struck out on his own, a selfprofessed “dirty-shirt lawyer” who learned on the job. “I was sworn in on Saturday and had my first jury trial on Monday morning,” McGroder of Beus Gilbert in Phoenix recalls. It was a criminal case, and one he lost. “I didn’t know anything, and I don’t think the jurors left the box,” he says. “They probably wanted to find me guilty of impersonating a lawyer. I left there completely humiliated and mortified. I vowed that was never going to happen again.” McGroder turned that promise into a career winning more than $600M for hundreds of injured people
132
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Lawdragon: Your career and accomplishments are incredibly impressive. Where did your drive to effect social change come from? Patrick McGroder: I was raised in Buffalo, N.Y., an incredibly ethnic, blue-collar rust bucket – as they now refer to it – a town where I learned what’s important in life is loyalty, commitment, to not only your God, and family, but also to your fellow man, and the dignity that your fellow man represents. So that’s how I was raised. Philanthropy and social service was not an option in my family. My sisters and I were raised by incredible parents. They were not well educated, but came from a generation where basic human rights were respected and those who were victimized in life must be afforded dignity, compassion and empathy. And then there’s my Catholic faith. So that’s why I believe so strongly that great human beings make great lawyers – people who are respectful, civil and
PHOTO BY: ERIC CASSEE
500 I BELIEVE SO STRONGLY THAT GREAT HUMAN BEINGS MAKE GREAT LAWYERS – PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPECTFUL, CIVIL AND UNDERSTAND THAT OUR PROFESSION IS NOT A BUSINESS, BUT A CALLING. IT’S A CALLING THAT ENSURES THAT WE USE THE POWER OF OUR LICENSURE TO EFFECTUATE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS…OUR PROFESSION SHOULD BE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR CLIENTS’ NEEDS ARE AND DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT THOSE NEEDS ARE MET IN A LEGAL, ETHICAL WAY. understand that our profession is not a business, but a calling. It’s a calling that ensures that we use the power of our licensure to effectuate solutions to problems, and I don’t care if it’s as simple as a will or a divorce or someone buying a home, or in my case, someone who’s catastrophically injured. It doesn’t matter. Our profession should be about understanding what our clients’ needs are and doing everything we can to ensure that those needs are met in a legal, ethical way. We’re not here to make problems. In my experience, there are a lot of lawyers out there, perhaps unwittingly so, who cause more problems than they solve. LD: How did you decide to become a lawyer yourself? What inspired you – did you know lawyers? PM: My father was a first-generation American and was a great believer in education. I had gone to Catholic boys schools all my life – grammar school and high school. Then, eventually I went to Notre Dame, which was my father’s dream, because he was Irish. I’m not sure I was all that crazy about it. My dad was executive vice president of the Buffalo Bills football team. I spent four years at Notre Dame. I really had no desire or burning passion to be a lawyer. I always wanted to be a doctor, but my failures in life were generally directed towards the study of science and math, so… LD: I feel your pain. PM: I wasn’t particularly equipped for the medical profession but ironically, I wound up in the personal injury/medical malpractice field, where 50 percent of my practice is medicine, so I guess in a roundabout way, fate took me where I wanted to be. After Notre Dame, it was the height of the Vietnam War. I was getting called for physicals all the time. My father,
who – as I said was a great believer in education – wanted me to go to law school. And I really had no desire at that point to be a lawyer. So I said, “Look, you always wanted me to go Notre Dame, but if I’m thinking about going to law school, I’d like to pick the law school myself.” So he said, “That’s fine.” So coming from Buffalo, where there are essentially two seasons, July 4th and winter, and then spending four years in South Bend, Indiana, where it snowed from the time I got there to the time I left, I applied mostly to warmer-weather schools and co-ed schools. Notre Dame, when I went there, was all boys. LD: Clever man. PM: I was fortunate enough to get into the University of Arizona and arrived in Tucson in the late ’60s, and quickly thought that I’d died and gone to heaven. There was sun, and a variety of other things that a co-ed school had to offer. I arrived there, driving a ’67 Corvette and pulling a Triumph TT motorcycle, and I was about 215 pounds then, and I thought of myself as an athlete. I wasn’t exactly mentally prepared for law school. But I was quickly befriended by my mentor, Professor Junius Hoffman, who was a brilliant man. He had an undergraduate degree in Greek mythology, I believe, from Harvard and a Yale degree in law. We were kind of the odd couple, because I was about three times his size, not mentally of course, but physically. Within the first year, I realized that being in law school was not only a privilege, but that it might be the start of a very promising career. So I finished law school, and still wanted to go back to Buffalo and work for the Bills. I came up to Phoenix and took the bar exam in Phoenix and just fell in love. It was only about 600,000 people then, and it was just a fabulous town.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
133
500
500 IT IS BEYOND FULFILLING TO BE ABLE TO USE THE POWER OF YOUR PERSONALITY, INTELLECT, CREATIVITY, AND INGENUITY, TO BRING JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO OTHERWISE WOULD SIMPLY NEVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEIR CASES INTO THE SYSTEM. THE SCORECARD OF LIFE, IT’S NOT MEASURED BY WINS AND LOSSES; IT’S MEASURED BY THE JUSTICE THAT WE’RE ABLE TO OBTAIN FOR OUR CLIENTS. Because my grades were not prestigious in law school, I struggled finding a job. So I essentially became a sole practitioner; I learned to practice on the street, and I hit my first personal injury case for a million dollars within a few years and took off from there. I started my own firm and ran that firm for about 25 years. A lot of my partners retired, and I went with a semi-large firm here in Phoenix. I established a large personal-injury practice. I realized that I could be much more effective if I took fewer cases and concentrated on those in which there was catastrophic injury or wrongful death associated with some social architecture. So I became known for taking those kinds of cases, whether they involved road design, aviation disaster, corrections, accounting, legal, and certainly medical negligence. Eventually, most of the high-profile cases in Arizona that involved catastrophic injury or wrongful death would find their way to my door, from the Granite Mountain Hotshots, the firefighters who were burned alive, to the news helicopters that crashed over downtown Phoenix. LD: We have the honor of knowing numerous great lawyers who are great people, and then we’ve also seen the folks who want to be the same as those great lawyers, but maybe don’t have the moral underpinning, right? It seems to me a lot of what drives you to take the kinds of cases that you take and fight the way that you do comes from your personal code, from who you are. PM: You know, I can’t heal the sick, I can’t raise the dead, but I can restore a modicum of dignity to my clients who have faced the most overwhelming adversity. And I hope that I do it in a way that’s empathetic, compassionate, and at the same time represents a full measure of justice. I don’t have any desire to be on the cover of any magazines, nor argue in front of the Supreme Court 10 times a year, although that would be a great honor. But what I do changes lives, and to me, that is my calling.
134
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: Can you describe what it’s been like to be an advocate for your clients in court as well as to be an advocate for the openness of courts to people who lack financial resources? PM: A lot of defendants talk about jury reform. I think juries are the ultimate reformation. They truly try to do the right thing. Do they come off the rails sometimes? Sure. Do they decide things based on irrelevancy? Sure, I mean that happens sometimes. But juries are the great equalizer, as is having a plaintiffs’ bar that’s available and affordable. To bring people justice that heretofore would not have a voice nor the financial wherewithal to litigate against institutions, people of means and wealth, governmental agencies, or any other potential defendant in a superior financial or leverage situation. We provide access to justice in a way that doesn’t penalize the poor, the voiceless, and the underserved. And I strongly believe in that. LD: How do the victories that you’ve won for your clients motivate you when you wake up in the morning or when you’re finishing a long day at the office on a difficult case? PM: It is beyond fulfilling to be able to use the power of your personality, intellect, creativity, and ingenuity, to bring justice for those who otherwise would simply never have an opportunity to bring their cases into the system. The scorecard of life, it’s not measured by wins and losses; it’s measured by the justice that we’re able to obtain for our clients. And especially in the plaintiffs’ bar, those clients who have been devastated, destroyed by injury, by travesty, by death. And to be able to say to them, “Look, what we’re able to do from a justice standpoint or a compensation standpoint, at the end of the day, perhaps is meaningless in your world. But maybe we can make your life a little bit better. And maybe the defendant will remember your name. And maybe the defendant will ensure, through changes and remedial measures,
500
that something like what happened to you, is never, ever going to happen again.” LD: You’re a nationally acclaimed plaintiff lawyer, but I know your heart is in Arizona, and many of the hallmark cases that you’ve done are Arizona-based. Obviously, Phoenix has grown into a major city while you’ve lived there – do you feel satisfied when you think about the ways that you’ve contributed to what it is today? PM: Yes, absolutely. I’m silently proud – because I’m not somebody who wears my achievements on my sleeve – when I go by a road that has been redesigned because of what we’ve done, like Route 89A up in Sedona, for example, where our cases resulted in rock-fall remediation on a very scenic highway where rocks were falling and catastrophically injuring and killing people. Or considering the transformation of a waterway here where two doctors were killed or, whenever a police car drives by, thinking that we made police vehicles safer in this country, I feel quietly satisfied. LD: What advice do you give your son, who’s following in your footsteps, or other attorneys who are starting out? PM: I learned the hard way. I learned to practice law as a dirty-shirt lawyer. I didn’t have any clerk jobs. I was not recruited by silk-stocking firms. I did not have the types of mentors that one would find in a large law firm. I learned to practice law in the
courtroom by trial and error, by doing everything I could, and through working 24/7 for probably the better part of 45 years. Now a lot of that may have been fear: fear of making mistakes, fear of not doing what is in the best interest of my client, maybe because I didn’t know what was in the best interest of my client. So fear, for me, was a great motivator. But what I tell young people is, “Look, you need to learn every day. There are no stupid questions.” Because, let me tell you something, I ask every stupid question there is. I have seen so many lawyers, so many young lawyers, who are afraid to ask that stupid question. They’re afraid, because someone might think that they’re something less than as smart as they think they are. Or they’re afraid to put in the time and the commitment and the effort it requires to be a trial lawyer. If you want to be a trial lawyer, you’ve got to learn about the human condition. And you’ve got to learn to listen and learn to communicate. And without those tools, you’re not going to be much of a force in the courtroom. You’ve also got to work. You’ve got to sit down, analyze, be creative, be innovative, you’ve got to apply facts and theories of the law, and then work backward and understand the law and apply those theories and facts to the law. You need to know the other side’s case as well as they do. You need to understand how you can lose, because if you understand how you can lose, then you understand how to win.
I LEARNED THE HARD WAY. I LEARNED TO PRACTICE LAW AS A DIRTY-SHIRT LAWYER. I DIDN’T HAVE ANY CLERK JOBS. I WAS NOT RECRUITED BY SILKSTOCKING FIRMS. I DID NOT HAVE THE TYPES OF MENTORS THAT ONE WOULD FIND IN A LARGE LAW FIRM. I LEARNED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE COURTROOM BY TRIAL AND ERROR, BY DOING EVERYTHING I COULD, AND THROUGH WORKING 24/7 FOR PROBABLY THE BETTER PART OF 45 YEARS.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
135
500
��””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”” �”””””�”�”””””””�””””””””””�””””�”””””””””””””� �”””�”””””””””””””””��”””””””””””””””””�”””””””””””””””””””�”””�”””””””�”””” ��”�””�””””””””””””����”””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””” ””�””””�”””””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””�””�”””””””””””””””””” �”””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”””��”””””””””””””””””””””�””””���”�”””””” ”””””””””””””””””””””””�””�””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””�””””””””””””””””””””””””” ””””�””””””””””””””””””””�”””��””””””�”””””””””��””””””””””””””””�� �””””””�””””�””””�””””””””””””””��”””�””””””””��””�””””��””””�”””””�””�”
“I’m attered to be included in such distinguished company.” ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” ”””””””�”””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””””””””””�
500
The Legends It’s no wonder that each year we struggle to find the right words to describe the astounding group of advocates who earn recognition as the Lawdragon Legends – the most elite of the nation’s elite lawyers who have made the Lawdragon 500 guide for a tenth time. The 30 lawyers below in the class of 2019 include Supreme Court justices; the most fearless and creative counsel for employees and businesses; those who have successfully protected corporations over faulty products and those who have brought historic product-liability suits; lawyers who have handled billions upon billions of complex transactions; and a scattering of practice leaders focusing on everything from high-profile book deals to gross human rights violations. As always, we are honored to include this esteemed group in our Legends feature online and in this Magazine. We proudly present to you the 2019 Lawdragon Legends.
PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
137
500 138
Charla Aldous
Samuel Alito
ALDOUS WALKER – DALLAS
U.S. SUPREME COURT – WASHINGTON, D.C.
A natural in a courtroom, this acclaimed plaintiff lawyer has more than 200 trials to her credit, winning hundreds of millions for sex abuse victims, product liability and other wronged consumers.
The son of an Italian immigrant, the conservative Alito shared his high court aspirations in the Princeton yearbook, achieving them after decades in government, replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Photo by Justin Clemons
Photo by Photo by Steve Petteway
Kim Askew
Robert Barnett
K&L G A T E S – DA L L A S
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY – WASHINGTON, D.C.
A top litigator in commercial and employment disputes, the exemplary Askew has blazed pathways for women and minority lawyers her entire career, opening doors from Dallas to the ABA.
He wrote the book on D.C. power-brokering through panache, integrity and unsurpassed connections leading him to represent every author from the Prince of Wales to Obama.
Photo by Justin Clemons
Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
George “Gar” Bason DAV IS PO L K – N E W YO R K
Cari Dawson A LS TO N & B I R D – A TLA N TA
Among the nation’s top dealmakers, Bason leads his firm’s vaunted global M&A dealmaking practice while handling billions in deals for Tyson’s, Citigroup, JPMorgan and ExxonMobil.
Dawson is the Diva of Defense for Toyota, Porsche, Home Depot, Walmart and an astounding number of top corporates facing enterprise-threatening litigation claims.
Photo by Laura Barisonzi
Photo provided by the firm
Kelly Dermody
Jodi Westbrook Flowers
LIEFF CABRASER – SAN FRANCISCO
Dermody has earned a reputation as one of the top advocates for workers nationwide, fighting for gender equality, equal pay, minority and LGBTQ rights, and for #MeToo protections. Photo by Gregory Cowley
MOTLEY RICE – MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.
This fearless champion of the underdog has fought human trafficking, global terrorism, fraud, data breaches and harmful products from asbestos to lead pigment. Photo by Jack Alterman
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
139
500
Agnieszka Fryszman COHEN MILSTEIN – WASHINGTON, D.C.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL – NEW YORK
A remarkable human rights advocate, Fryszman has litigated against profiteers of the Holocaust and advocated for Nepali laborers working at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leading U.S. lawyer for Latin American deals, savvy and wherewithal, Galvis has advised on matters in 25 countries worldwide while anchoring the international footprint of his top global firm.
Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan
Photo by Jennifer Pottheiser
David Goldschmidt
Thomas Goldstein
S KA DDE N – N E W YO R K
GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL – BETHESDA, MD.
Photo provided by the firm
Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan
From high-tech offerings to REITS and Israeli corporate affairs, Skadden’s capital markets guru is aces advising on international finance for a vast range of corporate leaders.
140
Sergio Galvis
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
With more than 125 merits representations before the U.S. Supreme Court, Goldstein has amassed a record of breadth and distinction in both oral arguments and cert petitions.
500
Richard Hall C R A V A T H – N E W YO R K
Michael Hausfeld HAUSFELD – WASHINGTON, D.C
This Australian native heads the top firm’s EMEA M&A practice with a practice that would make a koala blush, handling billions of complex and innovative deals for major institutions.
Quite arguably the nation’s leader in using the law as a tool for economic and social change in a world of exploitation and greed, he has helped countless thousands of victims.
Photo provided by the firm
Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan
Lynne Hermle
James Hurst
O R R ICK – ME N L O PA R K
She wins. No matter the circumstances or the stakes, the unflappable Hermle has been the top defender for Silicon Valley and hundreds of other companies whose reputations she has protected.
KIRKLAND – CHICAGO
The trial titan wins and wins and wins again, posting remarkable results in trial and appellate battles with the highest stakes. Photo by Anthony Tahlier
Photo provided by the firm
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
141
500
Elena Kagan U.S. SUPREME COURT – WASHINGTON, D.C.
The fourth woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court has a history of firsts, including first female Solicitor General and Dean of Harvard Law School. Photo by Steve Petteway
Jeffrey Kessler W I N S TO N & S TR A W N – N E W Y O R K
Mr. Competition towers over the fields of antitrust and player-side sports law like few other lawyers while serving as Global Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn. Photo by Laura Barisonzi
William Lafferty MORRIS NICH O L S – W IL MIN G T O N
A leading light of the Delaware bar he excels in M&A and Chancery litigation on behalf of a who’s who of private equity and global corporate elites. Photo by Hugh Williams
Mark Lanier LA N I E R LA W F I R M – HO U S TO N
Molo should be on the short-list for any company or individual facing a big case, having excelled in the full gamut of complex civil cases to high-profile criminal matters. Photo by Felix Sanchez
142
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
David Lira GIRA R DI | K E E SE – L O S A N G E L E S
Katharine Martin W I LS O N S O N S I N I – P A LO A LTO
This acclaimed plaintiff lawyer has won hundreds of millions for consumers injured through faulty seatbelts, in bus rollovers and construction accidents.
This savvy dealmaker for companies including Lyft and Survey Monkey is also chair of the board of the fabled Silicon Valley firm.
Photo by Amy Cantrell
Photo by Annie Tritt
Mark Mendelsohn
Scott Musoff
PA UL W E ISS – W A SH IN G T O N , D.C.
SKADDEN – NEW YORK
The architect of the Justice Department’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement program guides global corporate elites through the higheststakes investigations.
A highly respected securities litigation defense lawyer who wins the toughest cases, Musoff is also much admired for his firm leadership and pro bono dedication.
Photo provided by the firm
Photo provided by the firm
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
143
500
Stacy Phillips B LA NK R O ME – L O S A N G E L E S
144
Darren Robbins R O B B I N S G E LLE R – S A N D I E G O
The doyenne of divorce for the 90210 set – and tens of thousands of other high net-worth individuals who need a friendly ear and informed guidance to navigate difficult family issues.
The founding partner of the nation’s biggest securities class action practice has won billions for investors in failed & flawed companies and is a leader in corporate governance reform.
Photo by Hugh Williams
Photo provided by the firm
John Savarese
Kannon Shanmugam
WA CHT E L L – N E W YO R K
PAUL WEISS – WASHINGTON, D.C.
This top Wachtell litigation partner gained valuable expertise as a prosecutor before joining the nation’s most illustrious firm to guide its fabled clientele thru 2008 fallout and other crises.
One of this generation’s brightest lights in Supreme Court advocacy (and among the youngest Lawdragon 500 members ever), he’s now creating a deep appellate bench for his powerhouse firm.
Photo provided by the firm
Photo provided by the firm
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Steve Toll COHEN MILSTEIN – WASHINGTON, D.C.
Among the nation’s most admired lawyers, Toll has created a superb plaintiff securities practice, recovering billions for stockholders while passionately supporting pro bono.
Robert Townsend CRAVATH – NEW YORK
The head of Cravath’s M&A practice for North America has a deal sheet to envy, with combinations for Sprint, J.D. Power and Johnson & Johnson. Photo provided by the firmw
Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
145
GIR ARDI
|
KEESE
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: Howard B. Miller, John K. Courtney, James G. O’Callahan, Keith D. Griffin, Thomas V. Girardi, David R. Lira, Amy Fisch Solomon, Robert W. Finnerty, John A. Girardi
A national reputation built on helping the little guy Review the National Law Journal’s list of the top 11 plaintiff’s law firms in the country, Lawdragon’s list of the nation’s leading attorneys, or the Los Angeles Daily Journal’s ranking of the city’s best firms or its top 100 lawyers list, and you’ll regularly find Girardi | Keese attorneys named. Recognized for their legal acumen and superb trial skills, the 38 attorneys of Girardi | Keese frequently prevail.
RECORD OF SUCCESS | For more than 40 years, Girardi | Keese
has been at the forefront of injury cases involving physical hurt, property damage or financial harm. Since 1965, the firm has recovered more than $3 billion against some of the world’s largest corporations, including Exxon, Shell, the Ford Motor Company, DuPont and Walt Disney World. Girardi & Keese has also been involved in many groundbreaking verdicts, such as the first $1 million medical malpractice verdict in California in the 1970s, and more recently, the $1.9 billion settlement on behalf of California’s energy customers. Additionally, Tom Girardi was a significant architect of the $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement.
Amy Cantrell
Each win is important because every case represents the health and well-being of individuals in Southern California—the little guy. Individuals who have been harmed in some way are at the heart of Girardi | Keese’s practice, whether the injury was due to medical malpractice, product failure, wrongful termination, vehicle accident or similar wrongdoing. LEADING LAWYERS | This year, three Girardi | Keese lawyers made the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide—founding partner Thomas V. Girardi, David R. Lira and Amy Fisch Solomon.
G K
GIR ARDI
|
KEESE
LAWYERS
1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 ph: 213.977.0211
fax: 213.481.1554 www.girardikeese.com
155 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 260 San Bernardino, CA 92408 ph: 909.381.1551
500 Patricia Brown Holmes RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA (CHICAGO)
500
Remember the first time you rode a roller coaster. You do, right? OK, back of the line. What did you do the first time something scared the hell out of you? That momentary rush knowing something new was going on and then the driving, hallucinatory rush to the bottom. Wondering if you were going to die or merely wanted to. That’s where we are. Today.
THE NOW Perpetual terror catalyzed by the necessity of movement. Because onesies are still not really office attire. We love this year’s mash-up of Bad Guy on a Hometown Road as Ladies of the ‘80s (and before) bring a glorious mixture of new power and old. Representing law today, where we are, where we’re going. We love 40 percent women including Judge Patricia Brown Holmes, the first named and founding minority female partner of a top law firm. And the 20 percent inclusiveness of this 500. Remember this: Her fellow students wouldn’t sit next to her at college. And look at her in The Now. Today. Did anything really exist before this moment?
PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
149
500
500 150
Matthew Abbott
Lauren Angelilli
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Angela Agrusa
Antonia Apps
DLA LOS ANGELES
MILBANK NEW YORK
Charla Aldous
Stephen Arcano
ALDOUS WALKER DALLAS
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Mary Alexander
J. Robert Arnett
MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO
CARTER ARNETT DALLAS
Mary Rose Alexander
Kurt Arnold
LATHAM CHICAGO
ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON
Rosemary Alito
Clifford Aronson
K&L GATES NEWARK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Samuel Alito
Lisa Arrowood
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
ARROWOOD BOSTON
Catherine Amirfar
Kim Askew
DEBEVOISE NEW YORK
K&L GATES DALLAS
David Anders
Noam Ayali
WACHTELL NEW YORK
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES ”WOULDN’T TAKE NOTHING FOR MY Journey Now” – the title of a Maya Angelou book derived from a Gospel song – is also a fitting summation of the career of powerhouse Chicago lawyer and former Judge Patricia Brown Holmes. For if you want to know what it takes to be the first African-American female managing partner and founding partner of a major U.S. national law firm, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, let us take you for a walk in Holmes’ shoes.
Her work as the special prosecutor in the killing of Laquan McDonald and lawyer for Jussie Smollett is well known. As are her numerous corporate clients, including United Airlines, and civic appointments, heading a Governor’s task force on torture. Her depth of experience that led her to today is unrivaled – nine years as an associate judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County; Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel for Municipal Prosecutions for the City of Chicago; trying 26 complex felony cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; and serving as an Assistant State’s Attorney for Cook County, arguing twice before the Illinois Supreme Court. Born determined and in charge, she is the oldest of five kids. By the age of 12, she could help cook dinner, feed her siblings, and make sure homework was done while her mom and dad worked. She was a gymnast who sewed her own clothes and played the organ for her uncle’s storefront church while becoming the top student in her high school class. But she had competition. A young man we’ll call “GH,” to be precise. And, as high school seniors, they were tied for top student. When a blizzard hit in the winter of 1978, she was resolute. She had to show up to school to keep her perfect attendance and the edge over GH. “It felt like a million degrees below zero windchill outside. I had to walk four blocks to the bus stop. I stood outside until the bus came, freezing. When I got on, I was the only person on the bus and the bus driver’s looking at me like, ‘You poor thing, where are you going?’ I didn’t care. I had to get to the school. Once there, I’m beating on the door and a janitor opens up the door and he looks at me. He says, ‘Go home. Nobody’s here.’ And I said, ‘You’re here!’ But he made me leave. So I then have to get back on a bus to go all the way back home because they won’t let me in the school. “I get home and I’m mad, because this is my perfect attendance,” she says. She planned her argument and went to school the next day insisting her attendance be counted. “I was here. This is messing with my attendance record...’
PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN
BY KATRINA DEWEY
and they’re like, ‘Child, it will be okay. It was cold outside. NOBODY came to school except you.’” Not quite true. Her first witness? The janitor. Verdict: Ms. Patricia Brown edged GH for top student because of her four-year perfect attendance record. “My siblings still tease me about it to this day,” she says. With an aptitude for science, she was recruited for the University of Illinois Minority Introduction to Engineering Program. Today and more so in 1979, there is a world of difference between the South Side of Chicago and Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, where she attended undergraduate and law school. For the first time in her life she experienced feelings of being alone. She was the only African American and the only woman in the program. “People would not sit next to me,” she says. “I have a distinct memory of an engineering class where there was an empty chair in front of me, the seats all around me were empty and people were standing along the wall. I’m sitting there thinking, ‘I wonder why they won’t sit down. Maybe there was something wrong with the seats?’ I didn’t even have the experience or good sense to realize why they didn’t want to sit next to me.” After a couple of years of loneliness in the program, she switched to liberal arts. Lawdragon: You are not a person who gives up. Patricia Brown Holmes: It was just too hard to do. I was doing fine in my classes; I love math and science. But I was watching my friends going to classes together, hanging out, having fun and I felt left out. There were already very few minority students on campus, and we were spread all over the place so it was hard to see each other as it was. And we were dealing with the concept that most folks had - if there was a group of black kids in one spot, they were concerned. “‘Oh my God! They’re all sitting at one table.’ But did you stop to look over and see that there are all white kids at that table, and all white kids at another table? You’re sitting with your friends. So why can’t I sit with my friends?” I think that myopic view is what gets in the way of diversity and inclusion in our society; people don’t see themselves, they only see you. So, when they see two black people together, “Oh my God, that’s a problem.” And they’re not thinking about the fact that they’re standing next to another white guy. It’s like, “OK, why is it not a problem for you, but it’s a problem for us?” LD: It’s the perspective, right? If the whole discussion about diversity and inclusion is from the perspective of
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
151
500
500 white people, or white men, or whatever the majority is – and those are normally what it is, certainly in the law – then it’s like they never flipped the lens to recognize, “Oh wait, but we already have our cohort.” PBH: Yes. I’m reading a book right now, “White Fragility,” by Robin DiAngelo, and that’s what it says: That if you’re only going to look at race through one lens, you’re never going to figure it out. You’ve got to look at it through a whole lot of lenses, without bitterness or judgment, just a desire to be fair and just, to get it right. LD: Feeling like something was too much must have been an awakening of the challenges you would face. PBH: That’s exactly right. Years later, I had cancer. My stepson was 16, my daughter was four and my baby was six-months old. I felt awful. I kept thinking, I am too old for a brand new baby. I couldn’t get out of the bed. My husband was doing all the two, four and six o’clock feedings. I was going to the doctor weekly trying to find out what was wrong. I was in a lot of pain, and everybody’s saying, “Look, nothing’s wrong with you.” But my friend’s husband was a doctor; she sent me to see him. He ordered a gallium scan, and as I’m on my way out of the appointment the technician said in a solemn voice, “Good luck.” I thought it was strange. Later, I’m in court, on the bench, and the doctor calls my chambers and tells my clerk to get me off the bench. He tells me I have Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. “It appears to be in the last stage. I need you to stop whatever you’re doing and come straight to the hospital right now.” I’m like, “What? Now?” He said, “yes, the prognosis right now is probably less than 6 months for you to live.” Imagine that. I fought it with a very aggressive regime of chemotherapy and radiation and new drugs. It was a hellified two years. LD: And you stayed on the bench throughout this? PBH: I stayed on the bench until the day that my law clerk came into chambers and found me passed out on the floor. She called another judge for help. When I become conscious, they were calling an ambulance. I said, “No. I’m fine.” But she called my doctor anyway and he said, “Bring her in right away.” I wanted to finish my court call, but they forced me to go to the hospital. I then had to stay out for a few months because I was literally that depleted. My mind and body just were not “there,” so I had to admit I shouldn’t have been there. I was in so much pain. But, I’m like perfect attendance. I got to go. My courtroom needs me. LD: And this is what the woman who becomes the first African-American female managing and name partner in a major law firm has done to get there.
152
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
PBH: My mom, who is my idol, was very hard working. She worked as a buyer for Sears in the Sears Tower. We grew up on the very far southside of Chicago, but her job later moved out to the far suburbs. That meant a long day for her traveling to and from work. My stepdad at the time also worked in a far suburb. They were tired when they got home. I recall watching and feeling like I wanted to help. I remember hearing my mom on the phone one day saying to her friend, “I got a raise. I’m at $9,000.” I was sitting on the porch and thought to myself, OK, we have a five-bedroom house, car and five kids. I mean, we were not rich. We weren’t poor, but we were middle class. We had clothes, shoes, amenities, the whole bit. I remember thinking, if she makes $9,000, and can do this, then I want to make twice that much – I want to make $20,000! That sounded like a ton of money at the time. And what’s funny is that I graduated law school and my first job at the States Attorney’s Office paid $23,712. Funny how that worked out. LD: Tell me about your work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney? PBH: I loved every second. Every second – ate it up. It’s just the most spectacular experience that any lawyer could ever have. The perfection, the focus, the concentration. You’re doing justice. You’re doing good. It was the State’s Attorney on steroids. I loved that job, too. I really did. I got to argue briefs. I argued twice in the Illinois Supreme Court, on the same day. I argued on the defense side on one argument and the state’s side on the other argument. For the state I argued the constitutionality of the state’s right to motion to substitute a judge, which is the law now. I’ve argued in the state appellate court, the federal appellate court, Seventh Circuit. The only place I have not argued, but I have technically appeared, is the U.S. Supreme Court. We had the Conrad Black case, representing Mark Kipnis [the corporate counsel for Hollinger International, ensnared in fraud involving Black]. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. My name’s on the brief and the official paperwork, and I got to sit there with the other team members while the main appellate lawyer argued. [The Supreme Court limited the reach of honest-services fraud, leading to Kipnis’ exoneration.] LD: And today you’re known for handling the biggest headline cases. PBH: That’s true, but who knew they were going to be big headline cases? The Burr Oak Cemetery case was a headline case. My baby brother and my dad are in that cemetery. That’s what got me. I was lying down listening to the news before going to bed. I remember hearing a report that there was trouble at “Burr Oak.” I sat up
500
Baher Azmy
Scott Barshay
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Rebecca Weinstein Bacon
George ‘Gar’ Bason
BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO
DAVIS POLK NEW YORK
Shannon Baldwin
Paul Basta
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Ian Ballon
Lucia Bates
GREENBERG TRAURIG EAST PALO ALTO
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE BAYTOWN, TEXAS
Peter Barbur
Jack Baughman
CRAVATH NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Randall Baron
Martine Beamon
ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO
DAVIS POLK NEW YORK
Judy Barrasso
Max Berger
BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
Michael Barry
Matthew Bergmann
GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.
WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO
David “Chip” Barry Jr.
Sean Berkowitz
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
LATHAM CHICAGO
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
153
500
500 and listened. I called my sister because her husband’s entire family is there also. He’s got maybe 30 people there, right? They visit every holiday. We are listening to the story like “What the heck?” I then call a few folks to ask what are the governor and our state representatives going to do about this fiasco? The next day to my surprise I get a phone call from the Governor. He says, “Got your message. You’re right. I’m going to appoint a blue-ribbon panel. I want you to chair it.” That was a great panel. We traveled across the state to hear from people about the issue of cemetery regulation. I even testified before the U.S. Congress in D.C. We helped reshape the laws in the state. The Governor signed a bill into law that now allows people to pay for cemetery services in different ways; it used to be a cash only business ripe for fraud. LD: The changes you made put an end to what was at the heart of the scandal, that a group was reselling burial plots and removing remains of those who had been interred there, stacking them in other parts of the historic black cemetery. What else did your work include? PBH: I was appointed the sole trustee by the bankruptcy court in the underlying case. I settled with thousands of people. I renovated the entire cemetery, starting with tearing down a dilapidated, dangerous building. I ran an RFP process for contractors and built a brand-new building; erected 10,000 linear feet of wrought iron fencing; rehabbed roads; and beautified the place with updated technology, electronics and landscaping. It was a tremendous amount of work managing a multimillion-dollar business while practicing law full time. Part of the settlement also included a requirement to erect a monument in honor of those whose graves were desecrated. I commissioned two – one for the front and one for the location of the incident. The one in the front is just beautiful. At night it’s lit up. There’s this little nondescript girl with her brother or friend, or cousin, hugging her. They’re holding a picture of a mother, father, grandmother, and the light shines on it. Beautiful. I tried to portray something for everyone – give people peace of mind. LD: Can you talk about your work as special prosecutor for the death of Laquan McDonald, the 17-year old African American student killed by a Chicago police officer? You led the prosecution of three officers for covering up the details of his killing. [They were found not guilty.] PBH: The community was asking for somebody to look into the matter. My team did the best we could. We are happy with the job we did and we let the justice system work. As a prosecutor, you put on your best case and what happens, happens.
154
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
I think the issue lies with our society embracing so much “reality” television with all the fast fixes. You watch “Law and Order,” everything happens in an hour. Half an hour on the investigation side, half an hour on the prosecution side. We’ve created the impression that when the police arrest someone, they’re guilty in half an hour. But that’s not justice and that’s not how things work. All people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We can’t lose sight of that. The fact that someone is arrested means nothing. It’s just the first part of bringing someone into the judicial system, potentially leading to a trial. That’s all. As a society, we seem to have totally lost sight of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So, you’re not guilty until proven innocent. An accused actually doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s the government’s burden of proof, not the accused. All you’ve got to do is just sit there; the government has to do all the work. LD: We’ve made it very easy for people to presume that an arrest means the police have caught the right person, and that violence toward a suspect is acceptable. That belief system takes a very long time to rewire. PBH: We’ve got to train people to think different, more like they do in Canada. The Canadian judicial system is more in line with how ours really ought to be; they truly embrace the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. They hold the government’s feet to the fire and if the government can’t prove their case, then you’re free to go. They treat non-violent crime as non-violent crime. Even the worst non-violent criminals are in a prison system that is befitting of someone who committed a non-violent crime. Then folks who commit a violent crime are in a whole different system, treated differently. Because if I only steal your wallet, I shouldn’t be in a prison next door to – or in the same cell with – the guy who hit you upside the head and tried to stab you. I took my responsibility as a prosecutor to heart. When I started in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fred Foreman was the U.S. Attorney. He had a judge speak to us about the responsibilities of being a prosecutor. The judge said “the buck stops with the prosecutor. Prosecutorial discretion is a grave responsibility.” A prosecutor has discretion to do the right thing and to do justice. If you put an innocent person in prison, you have created a tragedy of justice. I always believed it is better to let that guilty person walk away, than to put an innocent person behind bars. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/12/29/lawyerlimelight-patricia-brown-holmes.
500
Steve Berman
Nigel Blackaby
HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE
FRESHFIELDS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mitchell Bernard
Lisa Blatt
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL NEW YORK
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
William Bernstein
Alexander “Zander” Blewett
MANATT NEW YORK
HOYT & BLEWETT GREAT FALLS, MONT.
Erica Berthou
David Boies
KIRKLAND NEW YORK
BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK
Landis Best
Mary Bonauto
CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK
GLAD BOSTON
Vineet Bhatia
Cheryl Bormann
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
LAW OFFICES OF CHERYL BORMANN CHICAGO
Ivy Kagan Bierman
Jamie Boucher
LOEB & LOEB LOS ANGELES
SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Robert Bingle
Theodore Boutrous
CORBOY &DEMETRIO CHICAGO
GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES
Frances Bivens
Bruce Bowman
DAVIS POLK NEW YORK
GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
155
500 Donna Wilson MANATT (LOS ANGELES)
500
DONNA WILSON
BY KATRINA DEWEY
THE THING ABOUT DONNA WILSON IS
We now have six industry facing groups – healthcare, financial services, digital and technology, entertainment and media, as well as a cross-industry group comprised of practice areas such as labor and employment, government, advertising and consumer, and white-collar that are industry agnostic. We understand that our clients want from their legal and business advisors not just a skill set, but also a deep industry expertise. We believe organizing along industry lines fosters collaboration among our industry experts – whether in litigation, transactional, regulatory, or consulting – and produces optimal results for our clients.
To those who don’t know her, it may have been a surprise that Manatt selected the relatively recent lateral as its CEO. To those who do know her, nothing amazing is a surprise.
Second, we are in the process of expanding the consulting and business advisory side of the business across our platform. Currently we have over 150 consultants and advisors working in four of our six industry and cross-industry groups, and we want to both broaden and deepen that expansion. Our clients tell us that with the rapid changes in technology, business, and regulation, the challenges they face require multi-faceted advice that often cannot be obtained from a monoline or solely consulting or law firm. Our hybridized and integrated business model seeks to meet that demonstrated client need.
you don’t know what just hit you. Blue-collar to her toes, behind her open and engaged demeanor are an incisive intelligence and savvy earned from a lifetime overcoming obstacles and earning it the hard way. The native of Southern New Jersey wanted to enter the foreign service, but learned that a security clearance wasn’t an option then for someone who’s openly gay. So on to law school, where she got her degree from the University of Virginia while working her way through. She practiced in Washington, D.C., before moving to Los Angeles and then joining Manatt six years ago.
Wilson sees her job as setting Manatt up for continued success in the new and evolving law and consulting worlds. She knew from her extensive litigation and regulatory work that clients are looking for more from their law firms than they once did. She’s made it her mission to position Manatt as a professional services firm of the future – able to address a wider range of client needs through a hybridized model offering clients legal, strategic, and business advisory services in an integrated team. The firm – known particularly for its work in healthcare; technology; media and entertainment; financial services; and real estate – has embraced this approach full throttle, broadening its capabilities and continuing to expand an internal culture that fosters diversity, inclusion, and creativity. In addition to being the CEO and managing partner of the firm, Wilson co-leads Manatt’s privacy and data security practice and is a partner in its financial services litigation and enforcement practice. Lawdragon: It’s been more than a year since you were elected, and four or five months now since you officially became chair of Manatt. Give us your analysis on the state of Manatt as we enter the new decade. Donna Wilson: Well first, I love the firm. And I love my new job. Since taking over, my appreciation for my colleagues has only grown. Since my being elected, we as a firm have sought to accelerate changes that we were already undertaking to best serve our clients in meeting the challenges they face in a rapidly changing world. First, we changed our operating structure to reflect a more formalized industry and cross-industry facing approach.
PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL
Third, we are acutely aware that our clients are looking for legal, business, and other advisors who are able to not just identify challenges but also provide pragmatic legal and business solutions, often in the context of a multi-disciplinary team approach. We are focused on continuing to grow and bring on talent that is best suited to helping clients navigate business and legal problems in a different way. Leading these changes with me is a new generation of Manatt leadership across our structure that reflects our strong talent pipeline. In fact, with the new operating structure, over one third of our new leadership identifies as female and/or diverse. All in all, it’s been quite busy and exciting here at Manatt, and we are energized for the future and developing new and unique ways of serving our clients. LD: What accomplishments are you most proud of? DW: It’s still very early in my tenure, but my colleagues embracing the vision of the Manatt of the future and working so hard to begin achieving it has really been amazing. Every time I visit one of our offices I hold an office-wide meeting to discuss, among other things, strategic goals and the status of our implementing those goals. Basically I want to make sure that everyone across
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
157
500
500 NOT WITHSTANDING ALL THE CHANGES, I’M VERY LUCK Y AND VERY BLESSED TO HAVE COLLE AGUES, PARTICUL ARLY MY SENIOR PARTNERS, WHO HAVE EMBR ACED THE CHANGES, WITH AN E YE TOWARD THE LEGAC Y THAT THE Y’RE GOING TO LE AVE BEHIND. the firm, from administrative assistants to senior partners and managing directors, knows and understands why we are making certain changes, how, and on what schedule, because everyone at Manatt has an important role to play in achieving our objectives. Someone actually asked me recently during one of these, “What is your proudest accomplishment? What are you most proud of during this period?” And I said, “I’m most proud of all of you.” The reason I said that was because change is always hard. Even positive change. Yet, our firm has a culture that is so perfect for this moment in time, where the entire country is changing, the economy is changing, our clients are undergoing change. So we are changing with it. The reaction I get from everyone is, “What can I do to help you? How can I help you?” I get that all the time. Whether it’s business professional staff, associates, consultants, advisors, or partners and directors. The changes we are making are consistent with our primary strategic goal of continually evolving to best serve the needs of our clients. It makes for a very exciting time, because everybody is sharing in this excitement about what we’re heading toward. We’re all working toward it together. LD: Can you talk a little about some of the challenges that have surprised you and how you’ve dealt with that? DW: I continue to actively represent our clients, but necessarily have stepped back a little bit from the practice, which has been an interesting experience for me personally. I love my clients and I love practicing the business of law. Frankly more of what I do as a privacy and data security lawyer is actually probably more on the consulting side than on the pure legal side. I definitely miss working with clients full time but with my colleagues I continue to help identify issues and develop creative and pragmatic solutions. But it’s also given my more junior colleagues opportunities to step up and to step into client relationships. That’s been really wonderful to
158
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
see, since I’m a big believer in training and mentoring and growing from within. I think that generally speaking, thus far the challenges that I thought I would encounter have not occurred. Because together as a firm we identified our strategic goals, we as a firm have gotten behind implementing the key areas of change needed to accomplish those goals. I feel very supported and I’m extremely fortunate to have been selected to lead all of us into this new chapter. I’m also very lucky that Manatt is so unique. We’re the un-firm. I have all these colleagues who just temperamentally are not lock-step kind of people, rather, they think differently and they think outside the box. It makes a difference. LD: How does that translate into recruiting? You were recruited to the firm six, seven years ago. What has stayed the same in terms of why you joined the firm, and what do you think has improved that could be exciting to those considering joining Manatt today? DW: There’s no question in talking to lateral candidates that they’re looking for something different. There are so many firms with an ethos of “bigger is better.” That’s not our path. We’re focused. We strive to make client service – whether in law, business advisory, consulting, and the like – the hallmark of our firm in the industries and areas in which we practice. We also strive to maintain the best parts of our culture. Which is not dog eat dog. We have lives outside of work. We’re not defined entirely by it. We really do try to follow an ethos of “don’t speak ill of thy colleagues and partners.” I think it’s a very caring firm and an integral part of our success is that we are very focused on the personal and professional success of the individual, as well as on giving back to the community, whether through pro bono or community service. You can be your true self at Manatt. That can often be hard to find.
500
In addition, developing our organic talent is a top priority for me and for Manatt as a whole. I started working at law firms when I was barely out of my teens as a law clerk, and have been fortunate to be able to work my way up to my current position, learning all along the way from friends and mentors. My goal is for every junior level professional in our firm to have those opportunities and experiences, as well as more formalized training and development to prepare everyone for the future of professional services and best position them to serve client needs. LD: A lot of law firm leaders are seeing more challenging times ahead. How are you planning for that? DW: As always we’re careful in how we invest in growth, including in hiring. For example, we’ve had really great success with lateral recruitment, and we’ll continue to do that. But I always tell my colleagues that if we want simply to multiply our gross revenues and our size, we could do that with the snap of a finger. Go out and hire people and books of revenue. That’s not what we’re doing. It’s not what we want. It’s a curated process. Most importantly, although a book of revenue is certainly a data point, we try to recruit for people with a demonstrated ability to build teams and collaborate with others to serve our clients. We also look at everybody as being interconnected. My joke is that if we meet a lateral candidate, I look at our platform, and when the candidate has enough contacts for the platform or overlaps with our platform to fill a BINGO card, I say, “BINGO, you’re hired.” I’m half joking, but it really is true. Our view is that we have an operating structure that is interrelated in a lot of respects. It helps build strength. When folks come in you can very clearly see where they connect to the different points on the platform. The more points at which they connect, the higher the chances for success. And most importantly, that interconnection enables us to provide a suite of interconnected services to our clients in a unique way. LD: You’re in the midst of a historic move in Los Angeles from the West Olympic corridor to Century City. How’s that going, and how’s it going to reflect the future? DW: I’m very excited about the new space. Your question is perfect because in designing this space, we wanted to make a statement as to who we are and where we’re going. The new space is designed to make it easy for our teams to collaborate, to engage with each other and with the firm, and most importantly to utilize cutting edge technology to best serve our clients.
We will be unveiling the new space after our March 2020 move, and our architects tell us that there will be no similar space by a professional services firm in Century City. Essentially we are going to have a great degree of communal space, with a staircase through it that we call the “hive.” It’s intended to be the heart of our firm. The elevators meet there, the internal stairs are there, the central hallways are there. And then around the internal staircase will be over 5000 square feet of communal space, in addition to collaborative space and technology throughout our five floors. It really represents a new way of working – we have to work like our clients increasingly do, not like a traditional law or consulting firm often does. There are many more exciting things about the new space, and I’m looking forward to sharing more details with you and the Lawdragon audience once it’s unveiled. LD: It sounds a little emblematic of you that, while sleek and well designed, you’re not just another space. Your leadership has a soul, you’re a person, and you’re not just looking for the next nice sleek package with your book of business. DW: Thank you, I would tend to agree with you on that. It’s definitely going to be a little different, and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing to be known as the professional services firm that gave up the boardroom for a surfboard room. It’s a different kind of law firm, and a different kind of professional services firm. The reason, frankly, that I wanted to take this position was to ensure that we kept these good things. Because having been at other firms, and coming to Manatt, I recognized fairly quickly that this culture and this soul and spirit, you don’t find easily. It’s an increasing rarity. LD: I think that’s one of the most telling things about your selection and where it sounds like the firm is today, which is, you dare to be different. Think different. Lead different. DW: I love that. That really does embody a lot of it. I think the clients are tired of the same old, same old. Since Manatt is as open-minded as it is, our people are willing to do things that are different. I want us to be differentiated in every possible way. I’m very lucky because I am at a firm that from the beginning welcomed my differences, and believed in my differences. I want others to have a similarly good experience as we move into the future. When you talk to people, that’s what they’re looking for: something different. Because there are 200 places they could go to and they would all generally be the same. So yes, we dare to be different.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
159
500
500 Eric Posner MOLOLAMKEN (CHICAGO)
160
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
ERIC POSNER ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE BREAKFAST
in the Posner household: “Son, give some thought to that box of Wheaties – the costs of labor to make each piece and the barriers to entry to keep the costs low in producing the box,” Richard might have instructed his son Eric.
So it was no surprise that Eric Posner became one of the world’s most admired legal scholars in an astonishing range of subjects. His books alone range from “CostBenefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives” to “Climate Change Justice” and his upcoming “American Demagogue.” What’s unusual, however, is Eric Posner’s determination to step away from the Ivory Tower of University of Chicago Law School from time to time to dabble in the real world. He formed his thoughts about the utility of a professor with real-world ties as a student at Harvard Law in the early 1990s, watching the rise of cross-disciplinary studies in fields such as economics and law. Attorneys would master the methodology of one practice and apply it to another. “That was kind of a model; there were lots of people who did that,” Posner recalls. “I found that appealing.” Throughout his academic career, he has taught any class that needed teaching. His father, the prolific author and former 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge in Chicago, taught and wrote while serving on the bench. Since 2010, Eric has been counsel to private law firms. He recently joined MoloLamken as counsel after six years with Boies Schiller Flexner. MoloLamken has proven a great fit for Posner, who was attracted to the people and quality of the practice at the innovative boutique. Established in 2009 by powerhouse trial lawyer Steven Molo and appellate standout Jeffrey Lamken, the firm has grown from five lawyers to 35 on the back of noteworthy trial court and U.S. Supreme Court victories. The firm is particularly noted for its work in bet-the-company cases in matters ranging from international arbitration to white-collar crime and massive shareholder claims. “Innovation is in our DNA,” says Molo. “We formed MoloLamken to create a new approach to litigation and Eric joining us adds another high-impact player who can help us achieve uniquely great results for our clients.” While Posner’s role in academia has informed his work in the private sector, the reverse is also true, he says. His experience with law firms increased the
PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN
BY KATRINA DEWEY quality and relevancy of his classroom instruction and enhanced his ability to connect with students planning their own careers. “I realized that I was able to give them a lot better advice about what the world was like,” Posner explains. “It’s not just the teaching - it’s also that most of my students are going to end up at a law firm.” Lawdragon: Tell me a little more about your pathway to joining MoloLamken. Eric Posner: In some ways it’s a long story; in some ways it’s a short story. I’ve been teaching for about 25 years, and I did not practice much before I started teaching. I was in the government for a year only and I always felt that lack of practical experience, both for teaching and for research. Many law professors, maybe most, don’t have much actual practical experience and sometimes that’s thought of as a qualification rather than a detriment, but I think it’s a serious detriment. I think that professors should have significant practical experience and should try to maintain their relationship with the bar and with the world of practice. LD: And had you thought that throughout your academic career? EP: Well, no, I think that now. I had done a little bit of consulting for Boies Schiller, and I became friendly with one of their partners, Bob Silver. I was counsel there until he passed away. He was a terrific person. LD: He was always called David Boies’ brain, right? EP: He was a brilliant guy and fascinating. He thought in a very academic way but made it work for practice. We worked a lot together but because the firm did not have an office in Chicago, I worked remotely and didn’t see much of the rest of the firm. It was kind of an odd experience because while I got a lot of exposure to litigation and the cases we were working on, I didn’t really get a law firm experience. Bob and I had, I guess, a very similar sense of humor and an odd way of looking at life. So we worked well together. LD: He was rare for law firms. To be this kind of genius guy you never saw who would go and think, but not be really a law firm person. EP: Definitely. He was a very unusual person. I do think he was brilliant. He’d work on cases where our position seemed hopeless, and he was really ingenious.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
161
500
500 The thing that struck me was that he was such a legal realist. He would try to figure out how to put the client’s position in the most appealing light from a policy perspective. A lot of this concerned financial markets, which are very complicated. And then we would try to figure out some legal basis for the argument. This is something I’ve been struck by, watching people at this firm and others. There is this real tension between the legal forms, the official arguments that you’re allowed to use, and the underlying facts and policy and moral arguments and so forth. I think it’s a real struggle. And Bob’s particular take on it I found fascinating. LD: In many places now, law is practiced in this very strict way that is commoditized and you don’t think about big issues. So to get in and really be able to – as Bob did and as a few firms including MoloLamken do and as you do as an academic – turn things around and look for what the right answer actually is and the path to get there, which is not a billable-hour equation, is very important. EP: I think so. After Boies Schiller, I spent a few years of just being an academic again, and I really felt the absence of practice. I realized there were a lot of ways in which it helped me. One simple way was it gave me great ideas for exams. Another way was for teaching. I teach a class in financial regulation and one of the cases I worked on at Boies Schiller was the litigation about LIBOR [the London Interbank Offered Rate, a benchmark lending rate for global banks]. When you teach a case that you worked on, you can convey the complexities much better than when you teach a case that you have merely read about. I also wrote about some of the cases I worked. In my book, “Last Resort,” I discussed the AIG bailout litigation, which was both fascinating and important. LD: So for teaching and scholarship, your law firm experience proved very helpful? EP: Right, and for advising students as well. So I felt that I should plunge back into practice. In mid 2018, I started looking for a new position. I wanted something in Chicago because I wanted to be able to interact with the lawyers. And I really liked the idea of a small firm because large firms are bureaucratic and, oddly, even though they have so many resources, you can get a little bit lost. Everybody has kind of a silo that they’re working in. I ended up at MoloLamken because one of my lawyer friends was wildly enthusiastic about this place and
162
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
suggested I talk to them. He put me in touch, and I went through interviews, just like everybody else. I have learned a lot since I came here and I feel that I have been able to offer a helpful perspective in return. I’ve worked on cases that I find fascinating, and I greatly enjoy learning from brilliant lawyers, many of whom are decades younger than I am. Several cases involve antitrust law, a new interest of mine. Market concentration is a huge problem right now. LD: Can you tell me a bit more about what you’re seeing in the antitrust field now? EP: There is a great deal of ferment at the moment. Many people – including academics, lawyers, and policymakers – have begun to realize that market concentration is a far more serious problem than was believed just a few years ago. Product markets have gotten significantly more concentrated over the last several decades. Labor markets are also far more concentrated than people had realized. As a result, prices are higher than they should be, and wages are lower. This has contributed to slow economic growth, widening inequality, and a host of political problems in our country. And then there are all the problems being created by the newly dominant tech firms like Google and Facebook, which have been able to exploit network effects that are inherent in the internet. In the world of antitrust, scholars are revisiting the settled wisdom and trying to figure out new ways to press the antitrust laws forward. LD: There is such a huge disconnect between the life of a law student, in general, and firms. Even though it’s been talked about for decades, firms are still just kind of monochromatic when you’re a law student. To actually be in the position where your students, current and past, can talk to you as somebody who goes to work in a law firm and also teaches, it’s super cool. There’s also that engagement in real time as you’re trying to bring new theories to cases. EP: Well, the lawyers do consult academics quite a bit. But the academics, almost all academics, are very narrow. The firms will consult an academic about some particular thing like fee arrangements in a class action. And this will give the law professors a little bit of insight into practice, which they can share with students. But it’s not a deep understanding. One of the interesting things about being part of a firm is that I have more insight into how everybody works together, and I’m getting a little exposure to how firms select cases, the risks they’re willing to take. How they evaluate cases.
500
And I think I can also contribute because at least in my work, I’ve tried to write in and talk to people in lots of different fields. I collaborate a lot with people. LD: Was that inspired at all by your father? EP: It was a little bit him, but it was mostly from when I came of age academically in the early ‘90s. There are lots of fields like law and economics, for example, or critical legal studies and feminist legal scholarship, where people would master the methodology and then apply it to different areas of law. There were lots of people who did that. My father was one, but there were other people. Without really thinking much about it, I found that appealing. LD: What areas of the law, what trends, are most intriguing to you now? EP: One thing I’ve noticed with antitrust law is that economists in particular, and some law professors, are always on the lookout for new types of anti-competitive behavior. And if you can turn that into a case, the litigation can help advance academic understanding while the academic theory can help guide and enrich the litigation. One thing I have learned is that you can’t bring a case just because it sounds like a good idea. There has to be a reasonable level of certainty and some financial support. And all those pieces are complicated. LD: On the academic side, what courses are you teaching right now? EP: I just finished teaching a seminar called demagoguery and executive power. And I finished a book, recently, called “American Demagogue.” I recently turned in the manuscript and it should be published in July 2020. It’s about the history of demagoguery in the presidency and southern demagogues, like Huey Long. LD: Timely. EP: Yes, it’s timely. Everybody’s writing a book about Donald Trump, so I am, too. But it has a different angle. There’s a historical context that people need to understand. I’m also going to be teaching foreign relations law soon, which I’ve taught before, and I’m hoping to write some articles that are related to antitrust law in various ways. MoloLamken does a great deal of crossborder work, even though our three offices are in the United States. My biggest interest right now is monopsony, and labor market monopsony and the problem of firms that have monopsonies over types of workers in certain areas and are underpaying them. This is something that brings together my interest in practice and my interest in aca-
demic work. On the academic side, what happened is a couple of years ago, labor economists began publishing these papers that suggested employment markets are frequently uncompetitive; wages are suppressed by monopsonies. This has been kind of a revolution in labor economics because before these papers were written, economists tended to assume that labor markets are competitive with the only exception being the classic company town, like the Pullman town. In textbooks and in general discussion, people would say, “Sure, Pullman set up its own town and put its employees in it and they had monopsony power over their employees, but that was an isolated thing.” But just over the last couple years now, that’s become thought of as possibly a new norm. So I wrote a paper with a labor economist and an industrial organization economist, in which we argued that the government should review mergers for their effects on wages. One thing we had discovered was that when the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission review mergers, they don’t look at labor market effects of mergers. They look at whether prices are going to go up, but they don’t look at whether wages will go down and that’s equally bad. We said they should, and we wrote a long paper that lays out how they could do it. LD: Fascinating. So are you looking for a monopsony case? EP: I realized as I did research that there are very few labor monopsony cases. In the classic monopoly case, you have somebody with 90 percent of the market who engages in abusive behavior like forcing customers into exclusionary contracts. But there are virtually no labor cases like that even though, if you believe what these economists are writing, this activity is happening all over the country all the time. Why are there so few cases? One of the problems is that monopsony is usually local. So when Walgreens and Rite Aid merged, everybody understands prices might go up, so the government knows to review the merger. But if two small farm-equipment manufacturers merge, that may not attract scrutiny. You have to consider each labor market, of which there are thousands. And ask whether in each one of those, is the merger going to mean there are fewer jobs for the people working in those areas? So, to answer your question – yes. I’m looking for a monopsony case – one that would both advance the law and help workers who are being underpaid. I know they’re out there.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
163
500
500 164
Ronnisha Bowman
John C. Browne
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
Heidi Brooks Bradley
Susan Brune
LANE POWELL SEATTLE
BRUNE LAW NEW YORK
Jennifer Bragg
David Buchanan
SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK
Richard Brand
Jacob Buchdahl
CADWALADER NEW YORK
SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK
Leah Brannon
Susanna Buergel
CLEARY GOTTLIEB WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Stephen Breyer
John Buretta
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Laura Brill
Angela Burgess
KENDALL BRILL LOS ANGELES
DAVIS POLK NEW YORK
Allison Brown
Karen Burgess
WEIL GOTSHAL PRINCETON
BURGESS LAW AUSTIN
Paulette Brown
Spencer Burkholz
LOCKE LORD NEW YORK
ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Sharon Burney
Mats Carlston
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK
Dane Butswinkas
George R. Carlton Jr.
TESLA/WILLIAMS& CONNOLLY PALO ALTO
GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS
Elizabeth Cabraser
Bill Carmody
LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO
SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK
Christopher Cadwell
James Carroll
BOIES SCHILLER LOS ANGELES
SKADDEN BOSTON
Angelo Calfo
E. Leon Carter
CALFO EAKES SEATTLE
CARTER ARNETT DALLAS
Timothy Cameron
Amy Caton
CRAVATH NEW YORK
KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK
Joseph Cancila
Doug Cawley
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS
Raoul Cantero
Jonathan Cedarbaum
WHITE & CASE MIAMI
WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.
Michael Carlinsky
Ricardo Cedillo
QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA SAN ANTONIO
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
165
500
500 Lauren Angelilli CRAVATH (NEW YORK)
166
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
LAUREN ANGELILLI HANDLING THE TAX SIDE OF CORPORATE
deals is especially demanding at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where the firm’s sophisticated client base engages in a nonstop string of complex transactions that typically span multiple jurisdictions. Lauren Angelilli, Co-Head of the firm’s Tax Department, credits her ascendancy to the top of the practice to a love of “puzzle solving” as well as the collaborative team approach that is a foundation of Cravath’s culture. Like most of her partners, the 2000 Harvard Law graduate has spent her entire career at Cravath, where lawyers excel at becoming true experts in the businesses of firm clients, Angelilli says. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Lauren Angelilli: At Cravath, our Corporate Department handles every type of matter imaginable, often with the highest stakes for our clients, and our tax team shapes many of those transactions. In that way, we are very much a part of the firm and are integrated into a larger system of collaborative client service. My own practice focuses on advising clients on the tax and structuring aspects of M&A, joint ventures, spinoffs and other transactions, both domestically and cross-border, and negotiating deals that satisfy clients’ tax objectives while still achieving their commercial goals. As a practical matter, my work requires the skills necessary to succeed in any area of the law and, indeed, in life in general – I listen, learn, teach, solve problems and communicate. I’ll highlight one piece of that in particular – communication. Tax issues can be exceptionally complex and, as you might expect, our tax team is expert in the finer points of law. Just as important, though, is our ability to explain difficult issues in a clear and understandable way. Not every client is interested in hearing the ins and outs of the Internal Revenue Code (though some certainly are) and so we must distill down the most critical, need-to-know concepts for clients and present them clearly. This, combined with our ability to craft practical solutions to tax issues, is Cravath’s hallmark. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? LA: I studied finance in college, at Wharton, and after graduation I went to work at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, an investment bank. While there, I found myself
PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI
BY JOHN RYAN interested in how deals were structured. This led me to Harvard Law School and then a summer associate position at Cravath, where I had the opportunity to work in the Tax Department and see how tax issues play out in practice. What attracted me to tax work was the “puzzle-solving” aspect of it – the need to reconcile complicated abstract concepts in a way that is coherent, and to find an approach that is consistent with the demands of various stakeholders and serves the client’s overarching business priorities. That was compelling to me from the start, and it remains so. Starting with an intricate set of facts and bringing them through to a solution that is clear, thoughtful and suited to the problem at hand is our core challenge, and one we enjoy. LD: What are some additional aspects about this work that keep you engaged and enthusiastic? LA: Tax is exciting because the law is always changing and our deals constantly present new fact patterns and novel issues. It’s the complexity of these challenges that makes this work so interesting. We need to understand each deal from all angles, all while it’s still evolving, in order to evaluate the tax implications. The tax elements become even more complicated for cross-border deals, which many are these days. This work is invigorating and no two days are the same. There is endless opportunity to learn. LD: Can you describe some recent examples of your work? LA: In the past year our tax team worked on numerous deals that were notable for their size, complexity and industry impact. I’ll highlight three in particular: The Walt Disney Company’s $66-billion acquisition of Twenty-First Century Fox; Viacom Inc.’s pending $30-billion combination with CBS Corporation, where we represented the Transaction Committee of Viacom’s Board; and Occidental Petroleum’s $57-billion acquisition of Anadarko. These transactions had huge implications for important, but very different industries – media and energy. One particularly interesting aspect of the Disney deal was that, unlike most spin-merge transactions, the spinoff of New Fox was taxable, with Disney inheriting the tax liability. When the deal was struck, the amount of this liability couldn’t be determined, in part because U.S. tax reform was still very much uncertain. To ad-
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
167
500
500 dress this uncertainty, we developed a framework to adjust the amount of consideration that Disney paid based on the projected amount of tax as determined at closing using a dynamic model. This approach is a great example of the Cravath team’s ability to develop creative solutions to challenging issues, and it was a pleasure to work with Steve Gordon, my mentor, tax partner and the other co-head of our Tax Department, on both this matter and the Viacom deal. On Viacom-CBS, we provided critical tax structuring advice, leveraging our significant experience with highstakes “merger of equals” transactions. This required us to undertake a detailed review of structural alternatives, balancing a complex technical tax analysis with the tax and other interests of the various stakeholders involved in the transaction. Finally, we represented Occidental in its acquisition of Anadarko, which was the largest U.S. oil and gas merger in more than 20 years. Occidental had pursued Anadarko since 2017, in an effort to grow its position in the Permian Basin. In April 2019, however, Anadarko agreed to be acquired by Chevron. Cravath advised Occidental on its revised acquisition proposal, which was successful. That proposal included two key new features: a $10-billion equity investment from Berkshire Hathaway, and the sale of certain Anadarko assets to TOTAL S.A. for $8.8 billion in cash. Thus, the Cravath team, including my tax partner Kara Mungovan and I, were called upon to negotiate three vastly different deals: a significant public equity investment; a cross-border carve-out transaction; and a domestic acquisition – all at once. Each transaction individually presented numerous difficult issues, but it was navigating each issue in the context of the others and the broader business deal that made the work challenging and remarkable. LD: Are there other tax matters from your career that stand out as favorites or especially memorable? LA: They’re all my favorites! For me, what makes a client or transaction special and memorable is the ability to work together with a team, collaborating to solve problems and to reach a result superior to what any one person could accomplish independently. I’m incredibly lucky to work with an exceptional group of lawyers here at Cravath. I’ve already mentioned Steve Gordon and Kara Mungovan. Andy Needham, Len Teti and Chris Fargo are also outstanding tax lawyers, and Mike Schler is truly legendary in the tax world. And we couldn’t do what we do without working alongside absolutely top-rate corporate lawyers. Faiza Saeed was the lead
168
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
corporate partner on all three of the recent matters I mentioned, and she is a formidable deal lawyer, not to mention the Presiding Partner of our firm. The clients that stand out are those where I have had the opportunity to forge long-term relationships with the dedicated professionals who work at those companies, getting to understand their key concerns from the perspective of an insider. As one example, I worked with Time Warner for over a decade on its most significant deals, including its $109-billion sale to AT&T Inc. in 2018, its investment in Hulu, and four separate tax-free spinoff transactions: Time Inc. in 2014, AOL in 2009, Time Warner Cable also in 2009, and the Atlanta Braves to Liberty Media Corporation in 2007. LD: What do you think makes Cravath unique? LA: Like most Cravath lawyers, this is the only place I’ve ever practiced. Of course, I’ve interacted professionally and personally with attorneys from dozens of firms and companies across the globe. I do think our firm has a special culture, which is buttressed by our rotation system of associate training and our collaborative approach as a partnership. We are a client-focused firm – almost every law firm would say that, but we are built to make that a reality. We don’t silo our attorneys into practice areas – we aim to also be experts on our clients’ businesses and every aspect of the deal-making process, no matter our title or formal role in the transaction. And we don’t have incentives that push partners away from working with each other – we are in and out of each other’s offices all the time, drawing on each other’s experience and expertise, and we see all clients as firm clients. Ultimately that is to our clients’ benefit, and I think it underlies why we’ve been able to represent them so successfully for two centuries. LD: What do you do for fun outside the office? LA: I enjoy spending time with my wonderful husband and our three terrific kids, who put our negotiating skills to the test. My family is the focus of much of my “fun” time and for that I’m truly grateful. We enjoy getting out of the city to enjoy nature and visit with extended family. And I love to read non-tax material in my downtime. As a parent I think quite a lot about my upbringing here in New York City, and the ways in which my parents did a great job making me feel powerful and capable of reaching my own, good decisions. I want to raise my own kids with the same feeling of confidence and independence. But I don’t want to teach them to negotiate too well, yet.
500
Paul Chan
Shauna Clark
BIRD MARELLA LOS ANGELES
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON
Peter Wilson Chatfield
Paul Clement
PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Erwin Chemerinsky
Ty Cobb
UC BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW BERKELEY
LAW OFFICES OF TY COBB JOHN’S ISLAND, S.C.
Doris Cheng
Linda Coberly
WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO
WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO
Evan Chesler
Lori Cohen
CRAVATH NEW YORK
GREENBERG TRAURIG ATLANTA
Robert Chesney
Mary Louise Cohen
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL AUSTIN
PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Apalla Chopra
Robin Cohen
O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES
MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK
Jeanne Christensen
Vincent Cohen Jr.
WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK
DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.
James Clark
Jason Collins
CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK
REID COLLINS AUSTIN
name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
169
500
500 Tom Melsheimer WINSTON & STRAWN (DALLAS)
170
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
TOM MELSHEIMER BECOMING ONE OF THE BEST TRIAL LAWYERS
of a generation takes a rare consistency of achievement that is exemplified by Tom Melsheimer, who started his career as a federal prosecutor and has since tried every type of complex civil and criminal matter under the sun. The Winston & Strawn partner says that one constant of his career since his early days of “boyish enthusiasm” has been a passion for trying cases that continues to come through in court. “The most frequent comment I get is that I come across like a Baptist preacher of the distinctly southern variety,” Melsheimer says. “As a lifelong Catholic, I don’t know exactly what to make of that, but over the years it’s been more effective than ineffective in the courtroom.” Melsheimer is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the co-author of “On the Jury Trial: Principles and Practices For Effective Advocacy.” He joined Winston in 2017 from Fish & Richardson and manages the Dallas office. Lawdragon: Can you tell us what types of matters are keeping you busy these days? Will you be in trial for a case or cases in the months ahead? Tom Melsheimer: I am lucky to have a very diverse trial practice. This year I will have tried a criminal health care fraud case and a civil real estate dispute. And argued two appeals. LD: Before we return to trial work, let’s talk a bit about your decision to join Winston & Strawn in 2017. It involved not only bringing over your big practice, but also playing a leadership role in a massive lateral move and the opening of a new office for a large firm. What was your thinking at the time about why you wanted to take on that type of challenge? TM: I was extremely happy at Fish & Richardson and some of my best friends in the practice of law are there. The firm has a first-rate intellectual property practice and I benefited from the firm’s stellar reputation. But I was ready to do something different and have a broader platform for my practice and, importantly, for my team, some of whom have been with me for decades. LD: Now that it’s been a few years, can you talk about how it’s going so far? TM: It has been more successful than I could have imagined. The trial lawyer brand at Winston is secondto-none. Winston has integrated us into the fabric of
PHOTO BY: JUSTIN CLEMONS
BY JOHN RYAN the firm and the resources have been every bit as good as advertised. Most importantly, the firm’s personality is that of a true partnership filled with mutual encouragement and support. LD: What challenges do you see remaining for the office? Or are there certain strategic initiatives you can share? TM: These days, the most important challenge for any law firm like ours is the acquisition and retention of talent. Finding the best young lawyers is the key to our future success. There is a lot of competition for the kind of people we are seeking. Relatedly, we have to maintain a diverse workforce. Diversity of viewpoints, perspectives and backgrounds is not just a slogan, it’s a key to substantive success going forward for any law firm that aspires to be the best in the country. LD: When did you start to realize you did not want to focus on any one area or industry but really try cases in a vast range of areas? Was there an early experience through which you became hooked on trial work? TM: When I was in college, I wanted to be an English professor. The job prospects weren’t very appealing in 1983 and I ended up at the University of Texas School of Law. I became hooked on trial work during my time at the United States Attorney’s Office. I was in the middle of what was then one of the biggest economic collapses in Texas history and the fraud cases that came out of it were some of the most complex and interesting cases imaginable. LD: How about an early mentor from the trial ranks that you can identify? TM: Richard Stephens was the First Assistant United States Attorney while I was in the office. To me, he was like Sheriff Andy Taylor from the old “Andy Griffith Show.” As a lawyer and boss, he was kind, generous, and gave you the impression that his greatest goal as a manager was for you to be a success. That’s a rare quality. I’ve tried in my own small way to emulate his approach. And unlike Andy, I’ve never had to manage Barney Fife. LD: You have significant experience representing high-profile individuals, and also defending people or entities that might be unpopular or face negative facts or allegations. Have you changed the way you deal with the media or publicity situations affecting your clients outside of the courtroom?
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
171
500
500 TM: When I was a prosecutor, I ended up on the team of several very high-profile cases. As a result, I developed relationships with reporters and learned how to speak to the media effectively. Later, I started a litigation boutique in Dallas. In those days, I looked for opportunities to garner media attention for the firm, either by publicizing our cases or offering commentary on legal issues of public interest. All this experience educated me about how to deal with the media in my own cases. There are two keys to doing this successfully. One is building relationships and trust with reporters. If you don’t have that, you can’t be an effective advocate for your client. Two is always being either totally honest or completely silent. If you can’t speak the truth to the media, you shouldn’t speak at all. LD: In the courtroom, what strategies do you employ to help guarantee individualized justice? We’re thinking here of the acquittal of your client, Dr. Nick Nicholson, in the Forest Park Medical Center case involving allegations of illegal kickbacks. How were you able to achieve the only acquittal among the nine defendants? TM: The key is to start with good facts. Lawyers without substantial trial experience (or self-awareness) tend to overstate their own importance to any result without realizing that it’s hard to win if you don’t begin with favorable evidence. With Dr. Nick Nicholson, we started with a core of proof that demonstrated his innocence. We tried hard to get the government to see it our way before the trial but, as is typical, the government would rather lose in court than admit a mistake. At the trial itself, we maintained “message discipline.” We didn’t chase rabbits, we didn’t raise issues that didn’t directly relate to our client, and we focused the jury’s attention on our evidence and, significantly, the absence of evidence implicating our client. And apparently, it worked, as Dr. Nicholson was the only defendant acquitted in that case. LD: Looking back over your career, is there a case or client that stands out as particularly memorable for one reason or another – either because of the challenges, the result, or unusual circumstances? TM: Representing Mark Cuban in the alleged insider trading case brought against him by the SEC is one case that stands out for me. The reputational stakes for Mr. Cuban were very high and the media coverage of that case was unlike anything I have ever seen, from the financial press to ESPN. I’ll never forget that during the middle of the trial, the series finale of “Breaking Bad” aired. I wanted to make sure our case had a better ending. It did.
172
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: What did your induction into the American College of Trial Lawyers mean to you? TM: It is always gratifying to be recognized by some of the best trial lawyers in the country. But the real value of it to me was the opportunity it gave me to reflect on all the diverse cases I’ve tried over the years, for a remarkable array of clients, including representing the Department of Justice, entrepreneurs, corporate America, patent owners and whistleblowers. LD: What was your motivation for wanting to put lessons from your vast experience into a book like “On the Jury Trial”? TM: Judge Craig Smith, with whom I wrote the book, is one of my closest friends. We had spent so much time talking about trying cases, whether from the perspective of a judge or a trial lawyer, that it seemed just natural to write down some of it and provide it to others as a guide. And I’m extremely proud that our proceeds from the book go to the UNT Dallas College of Law. LD: Were there parts of writing the book that surprised you or made you rethink certain lessons or concepts just by putting them on paper? TM: When we wrote the chapter on closing arguments, I was reminded on how relatively unimportant it is compared to almost every other part of the trial. I am not saying it’s not important at all, but trying cases over 30 years has convinced me that opening statement and effective cross-examination are much more important to a successful trial result. LD: Are there certain core lessons you discuss in the book that you seem to go back to time and again with young trial lawyers? TM: There are many useful elements of the book that allow young lawyers, and older ones, to enhance their trial skills. But the most important lesson, to me, is the importance of civility. Lawyers can have passion and conviction about their clients and their cases without demonizing the other side’s lawyers. LD: When you’re not dealing with the law or work, what do find yourself doing? TM: With our kids out of high school and in various stages of additional schooling or work, Miki, my wife of 36 years, and I have a lot more time to spend together. We aren’t tired of doing so. Far from it. The freedom to travel without taking into account anyone else’s schedule has been a revelation. The only time I am not ideal company is during college football season, particularly when Notre Dame is playing.
500
James Connell
Dedra Davis
MILITARY COMMISSIONS DEFENSE ORGANIZATION FAIRFAX, VA.
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
George Conway
Leslie Davis
WACHTELL NEW YORK
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
Philip Harnett Corboy Jr.
Cari Dawson
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA
Kelley Cornish
Ariel Deckelbaum
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Christopher Cox
Karin DeMasi
CADWALADER NEW YORK
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Heather Cruz
Michael Demetrio
SKADDEN NEW YORK
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
Steve D’Amore
Thomas Demetrio
WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
Frank Darras
Kelly Dermody
DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.
LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO
Susan Davies
Jack DiCanio
KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.
SKADDEN PALO ALTO
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
173
Nicholas Gravante Jr. BOIES SCHILLER (NEW YORK)
500
NICHOLAS GRAVANTE JR. NICHOLAS GRAVANTE WAS PREPARING
for a summer party he and his family host each year at their Pennsylvania getaway. He pulled from the shelf his thick black binder that details how many burgers – and other food items – they served the prior year, and noted that they had a few too many sausages. Which can be either a silly endearing story, or a clue to the tick-tock that goes on in the head of one of the nation’s biggest rainmakers and respected litigators. Routinely called on by Starr Companies, the Related Group and many Lloyd’s Syndicates for their biggest matters, Gravante’s also known for his relentless networking and community involvement. But at the heart of it all is a meticulous nature that ties down every detail for his clients. Of late, he’s officially been doing that for Boies Schiller Flexner, as well. The challenges many firms are facing as storied founders age have not escaped the House of Boies, which continues to be led by its Chair, the one and only Mr. Boies. But we are, after all, mortal. Which led the firm to recently name two co-managing partners, Gravante and Natasha Harrison. Gravante has been with the firm nearly since its founding after a legal career hatched at Cravath before becoming a trial lawyer with the legendary criminal defense attorney, Gerald Shargel. After that he joined Barrett Gravante Carpinello & Stern, which merged with Boies Schiller to become its New York City office in 2000. And he’s never looked back. Lawdragon: Nick, congratulations on being elected as the new co-managing partner of Boies Schiller, alongside Natasha Harrison. I know that this began with you taking on additional management responsibilities earlier in the year. What brought on these changes? Nicholas Gravante: This is just the next phase of the firm’s transition plan, which has been in the works for quite a while. Last year I served on the Management Committee, which ran the firm on a day to day basis. Now Natasha and I have taken over daily management and it’s an exciting time for the firm, our lawyers and our clients. Natahsa and I are being assisted by members of our Executive Committee with various management functions, but she and I enjoy working together and share a common vision for the transformation of the firm into a second generation firm. LD: What are you focusing on most as a new Managing Partner?
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY KATRINA DEWEY NG: Like any managing partner of any law firm, obviously I’m focused on the nuts and bolts of running a firm. Routine, yet important, issues like making sure we take on the right matters, making sure we’re not taking on the wrong matters, hiring, salaries, associate and partner compensation, expense management, diversity, pro bono. That is all important stuff and Natasha and I have an incredibly talented executive committee backing us in those areas, which is a tremendous resource. My main focus, however, has been on revenue generation and continuing to grow the business of the firm. In one sense, that’s what I’ve doing the for for the last 20 years, but now I’m doing it more systematically, across the firm for all of our partners. Increasing our efforts to grow our business through collaboration and, at bottom, what I call cross-selling, has been something I’ve been advocating for years. Now I’m properly positioned to drive the firm in that direction. LD: And what about you personally? You’ve been a Boies Schiller partner since almost the beginning and among those most responsible for its success. What is your view of the three most important issues the firm must focus on to move forward with the success it’s had in the past? NG: Managing a law firm, even with four of us working together, takes more time than I had imagined. I appreciate now even more than I did previously the great job that David, Jonathan and Don Flexner did over the years. It has been difficult to balance managing a law firm while actively practicing law and I now understand why many firms are run by a non-practicing chairperson. That said, I still believe the wealth of onthe-ground experience the Management Commitee continues to have as practicing lawyers makes us better equipped to handle the challenges associated with running a law firm. If I had to pick three issues I’d say, first, ensuring that the transition continues to run smoothly, not only for the Management Committee, but also for the rest of the firm. Having first been elected to the Executive Committee and now to the Management Committee, I feel a tremendous sense of obligation to my partners to ensure that we’re successful. We’ve long been one of the nation’s top litigation firms, but want to be the best. To achieve that we have to adapt to different times, including in the way the firm is run. Transition, by definition, entails change and change
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
175
500
500 is not always easy. Retrenchment – doing fewer things better – and focusing on what got us to where we are my top priorities. I have little interest in growth for growth’s sake. A decade from now I want us to be a firm at which law continues to be practiced at the highest level, a firm that lawyers truly enjoy being part of, and – never forgetting that this is a business – a firm that is very profitable. And if that means we’re a firm of 200 rather than 350 or 500 lawyers, so be it. It’s about achieving the highest level of client service and profitability, not about our number of lawyers or gross revenues. Promoting women to firm leadership positions also remains one of my top priorities. We’ve got some incredibly talented young women moving up the ranks. They’re not only great lawyers, but also dynamic and personable. I recently took on a pro bono case with four of them based in New York – Karen Chesley, Ilana Miller, Laura Harris and Joanna Wright – in which our female client is challenging the constitutionality of the military draft because it excludes women based on their gender. Now that our society has evolved to the point where women are active members of the military with key roles on the battlefield, we believe there is no basis to prohibit women from registering for the draft. Watching our talented female attorneys work together on this important issue has been the most gratifying part of the case for me. They give me confidence that our firm is going to thrive not only over the next decade, but 20 and 30 years down the road. LD: Not too long ago, the firm moved to Hudson Yards. What do you think about the West Side and what do you miss on Lexington? NG: I miss Lexington Avenue and the geographic convenience it offered during the work day, but Hudson Yards is truly spectacular and undoubtedly the most exciting place to work these days. It’s also a quicker commute from my home, which makes my life easier. Sprinkle in a barber shop, a pharmacy, a bank and a few fast food places, and Hudson Yards will have achieved perfection. LD: What cases are you most focused on right now? Any trials coming up? NG: I’m running a large matter for Starr Companies, juggling several appeals and handling some important criminal matters right now. White-collar criminal defense work, especially representing individuals and companies embroiled in grand jury and state AG investigations, continues to be a growing part of my practice. My next trial will be in Florida this fall for the Related Group. After that it’s likely to be Hank Greenberg’s defa-
176
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
mation case against Eliot Spitzer, where David Boies, Bob Dwyer and I will again join forces and hopefully replicate the success we had at trial defending Hank against the New York Attorney General’s case. I’m going on 15 years representing Hank and no client deserves a victory more than he does in that case. LD: You are noted for your rainmaking prowess. Has the pressure on rainmakers in general gotten more intense and if so how do you deal with that? NG: It is intense, but it’s always been intense for those heavily relied on by their firms to generate business. I guess the pressure on me has ratcheted up somewhat now that I’m in my prime, but I deal with it the same way I always have, by continuing to focus on it no matter how busy I am with existing matters and firm management. As I constantly preach to our younger partners, you just can’t ever be too busy to connect on a personal level with your existing clients, your former clients, your former colleagues, and your friends, including those from law school, college, high school and elsewhere who have achieved success in the business world. With a brand like BSF behind you, the more one stays in circulation the more business opportunities will present themselves, often from the most unlikely sources. By contrast, if you’re out of sight you’re out of mind. As my colleagues know, I’m also not one to “pitch” to prospective clients. I’d rather eat, drink or smoke a good cigar with them. LD: You’ve also made quite a name for yourself as a commentator on an array of white-collar issues including the current President. What guidance would you give lawyers who would like to get those press calls about how to respond? NG: Handling the press is tricky business, but I’ve always enjoyed the challenges it presents. Like everything else, once you know the ground rules and appreciate that everyone has a job to do, it all comes down to trust. Treat people fairly and they’ll treat you fairly. Watch out for a reporter and they’ll watch out for you. I’ve turned down dozens of cable news invitations over the last few years and just don’t have the time to be a talking head. With clients on all sides of the political spectrum, I’d also inevitably offend some of them, which is never a good idea. I did Court TV several times when I was younger, but it took up way too much time. My advice to young lawyers before they talk to the press is to sit down with a more experienced lawyer and get a quick course on the ABCs. A half hour learning the ropes will substantially minimize any possibility of getting burned.
500
Abigail Dillen
Daralyn Durie
EARTHJUSTICE SAN FRANCISCO
DURIE TANGRI SAN FRANCISCO
Diane Doolittle
Brian Duwe
QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.
SKADDEN CHICAGO
Joseph Drayton
Marc Dworsky
COOLEY NEW YORK
REID COLLINS DALLAS
Anthony Dreyer
Karen Dyer
SKADDEN NEW YORK
BOIES SCHILLER ORLANDO
Daniel Drosman
Ryan Dzierniejko
ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Thomas Dubbs
Patty Eakes
LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK
CALFO EAKES SEATTLE
Karen Dunn
Jay Eisenhofer
BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.
GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK
Thomas Dunn
Michael Elkin
CRAVATH NEW YORK
WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK
Linda Marie Dunson
Scott Ellington
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
HIGHLAND CAPITAL DALLAS
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
177
500
500
Natasha Harrison BOIES SCHILLER (LONDON)
178
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
NATASHA HARRISON PASSING THE LEADERSHIP TORCH
is never easy for major legal institutions, particularly when a firm’s founding partners carry the enormous weight and history of achievement associated with the likes of Boies Schiller Flexner. By selecting Natasha Harrison and Nicholas Gravante as the new Managing Partners, Boies Schiller has guaranteed that the challenge will also bring tremendous opportunity, excitement and positioning for continued success as one of the world’s leading litigation firms. New York standout litigator Gravante will lead the firm from its historical roots while the equally admired Harrison will do so from the firm’s London office. Harrison exemplifies the firm’s outstanding reputation in the areas of international litigation and arbitration for a wide range of clients. Lawdragon: Can you tell us about your new role as a Managing Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner? Natasha Harrison: Nick Gravante and I both appreciate the confidence David Boies, Jonathan Schiller, the firm’s Executive Committee, and the whole partnership have placed in us. It is a great honor, but also a responsibility, to be the first Managing Partners whose names are not also on the door. We are just getting started in our new positions, and we are looking forward to continuing the firm’s record of unparalleled service – both to our commercial clients and to our plaintiff and pro bono clients. LD: What’s the current state of your practice and more generally of the London office? NH: I have built a top-end international disputes practice in London, involving complex and often unprecedented disputes of very high value. My work is solution-focused, using the law as a tool to drive successful outcomes for our clients. The client base of the London office includes investment funds, private equity houses, investment banks, corporates, and governments. We are probably best known for our work in special situations on behalf of hedge funds, as well as value-driven creditor litigation. LD: What aspects of this work do you find professionally satisfying? NH: First, working with the smartest people in their chosen industry. My best clients are at the top of their game, bringing a unique perspective to the issues. By combining our different experiences and
PHOTO BY: CHRIS RENTON
BY JOHN RYAN perspectives, we can achieve unprecedented outcomes in and out of the courtroom. Secondly, the opportunity to learn about and become expert in the industries and investment positions, as well as the social and economic issues surrounding the disputes. We blend this knowledge with our knowledge of the law to deliver very sophisticated legal strategies. Thirdly, but not finally, building the top teams, by growing up best-in-class lawyers and growing as organically as possible. LD: Is there a recent development or achievement that you would like to tell us about? NH: I believe passionately in diversity, in all of its forms, and that diverse teams get better results. This has been the foundation on which we have built our London office. I was delighted to be recognized as one of the HERoes 100 Women Executives for driving change and increasing gender diversity in the workplace. The award was not just for the legal profession, where we have a lot of catching-up to do, but for the economy as a whole, so it was a big honor. Because we have built the London office from scratch, diversity is in our DNA – gender, social diversity, and ethnic and racial as well – which I firmly believe will deliver better results for clients. With Tracey Dovaston joining us from Barclays, three out of seven, or more than 40 percent, of our London partners are women. LD: Could you also describe a recent matter that the London team has worked on? NH: Our London team played an interesting and crucial role in a huge intellectual property and technology dispute, which played out around the world in the past year. The dispute was over whether one of the companies was licensing its handset technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, terms. We were able to get the English Courts to accept jurisdiction over a very significant portion of the dispute. LD: What was challenging about handling that type of dispute? NH: It was a massive battle. English law was untested in relation to FRAND, and it was one of the toughest, hardest-fought cases I’ve ever worked on because the stakes for both parties were so incredibly high. A key component was seeing this as part of a global effort, and we worked very closely with my part-
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
179
500
500 ners Bill Isaacson, Karen Dunn, Meredith Dearborn and others who were driving the litigation from the United States. And the English Courts, which are incredibly sophisticated, were able to understand the issues – and were willing to accept jurisdiction. LD: What is the impact on the client? NH: By opening up cases creatively on different fronts and in different jurisdictions, as we did in the English Courts, we were able to create leverage globally that ultimately helped win a very favorable global settlement in one of the biggest IP and technology disputes the world has ever seen. LD: What early experience or mentor helped shape the course of your professional life? NH: From early on in my career, I was exposed to a new breed of hedge fund that had opened up in London. I worked day-to-day with senior portfolio managers and investment professionals, crafting legal strategies designed to maximize value. That had a dramatic influence on me because, rather than working with the legal teams, I was trained by the business side. It taught me to be fierce and brave in my litigation strategies; it also taught me to always remain completely focused on finding a solution for the client, rather than on the process of litigation itself. LD: Can you describe your career path and how you arrived at your current position? NH: I was one of the first generation of English lawyers to grow up in the U.S. system, by which I mean, having gone to the bar, I started as a young associate at Weil Gotshal just when the London legal market was opening up fully to U.S. firms in the late 1990s. So I’ve gone through nearly all of my career working for U.S. firms, and this has effectively shaped my career. People say I litigate more like an American lawyer than an English lawyer. It also means I have a very deep understanding of U.S. firms, their values and their culture, so I’m very comfortable spearheading Boies Schiller Flexner’s move into London at just the right time. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? NH: The driving theme to my practice remains the same: doing top quality work for the most sophisticated entities, in the cases that matter the most. Over the last few years, I have increasingly been involved in leadership and management. Since joining Boies Schiller Flexner I have had the opportunity to build an office (and business) from scratch, and more
180
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
recently I have sat on the firm’s Executive Committee. This has given me unique insight into top-end management, which in turn is invaluable to advising the boards of my clients. So my workload has increased! The real challenge continues to be working full time as a lawyer, while being heavily involved in the management of the firm, running an office, generating business, as well as raising two children (not necessarily in that order…). LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. How do you sell yours to potential recruits? NH: We blend the prestige of a white-shoe law firm with the best work in town, combined with an entrepreneurial spirit that you normally only find in a smaller, more start-up type of firm. That combination is pretty unique. We’re creative, we have a flat structure, and the opportunities are immense. Our associates are also drawn to the opportunity of being part of building, and contributing to at all levels, the growth of the London office as well as being part of a truly diverse work environment. LD: What about pro bono? NH: Our strategy with pro bono is to take on fewer cases but focus on them as closely as we would with a fee-paying client. It is a huge privilege to work for the environmental group ClientEarth, which uses the law to defend nature and combat climate change. We undertook a landmark case for them last year, blocking the planned construction of a coal-fired plant in northeastern Poland – by challenging the board’s decision to move ahead on the grounds that this was poor financial governance. LD: Can you share some strategic plans for the coming months or years? NH: Brexit continues to dominate the headlines in the UK. However, regardless of the outcome, we see a lot of opportunities in London going forward. We will continue to grow our London office organically, as far as possible, by promoting internally; for example two of our star junior partners, Fiona Huntriss and Will Hooker were promoted from associate roles in the last few years while supplementing with strategic lateral hires from time to time. Tracey Dovaston, in January 2020, follows Ken Beale, Matt Getz, Will Hooker, and Dominic Roughton as lateral partners. We are building further strength in international arbitration, litigation, and investigations, while always preparing for the next wave of bankruptcy work, distressed debt, and creditor litigation.
500
Adam Emmerich
Fidelma Fitzpatrick
WACHTELL NEW YORK
MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE
Miguel Estrada
Jodi Flowers
GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.
MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.
Ward Farnsworth
William Fogg
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL AUSTIN
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Eric Fastiff
Katherine Forrest
LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Elizabeth Fegan
Ramona Franklin
HAGENS BERMAN CHICAGO
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Mark Ferguson
Todd Freed
BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Toria J. Finch
Agnieszka Fryszman
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Julie Fink
Alan Futerfas
KAPLAN HECKER NEW YORK
ALAN FUTERFAS LAW NEW YORK
Ora Fisher
Vijaya Gadde
LATHAM MENLO PARK, CALIF.
TWITTER SAN FRANCISCO
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
181
Kelley Cornish PAUL WEISS (NEW YORK)
500
KELLEY CORNISH YOU KNOW THAT FEELING YOU GET when you meet the real deal? It takes about 0.3 seconds to realize it. Kelley Cornish cuts that mark in half.
Perhaps that’s why corporations know the Paul Weiss partner is among the best in the business when they face a financial crisis. “You’re arriving at the scene of a train wreck, or a near train wreck,” she explains of her practice, which has helped companies including Sears, Walter Energy, Foresight Energy and AbitibiBowater. She is a force of calm and reason in the face of stressed executives drowning in debt and pressed by lenders. Triage is often the order of the day: determining what can be saved, what can’t and which problems have to be addressed most quickly. “You’ve got a lot of constituencies,” explains Cornish, a native of Easton, Pennsylvania, and a graduate of Northwestern Law. She learned her craft at Sidley Austin before joining Paul Weiss, where she has served two terms on the management committee and also serves on the committee that sets partner compensation, among others. “Internally, at the company, there’s the board and senior management, but there are also the lenders and the equity owners of the company,” she says. “The job, as I see it, is to try to make the best of the situation for all the constituents — hopefully, at the end of the day, through some kind of a deal, some kind of a consensual arrangement that saves the company.” Lawdragon: How did you get started in this field? Was this a practice you had aspired to? Kelley Cornish: I started out in litigation at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York. It was the 1980s, and a lot of national law firms, including Sidley Austin, were opening branch offices in the city. To me, that sounded like the greatest opportunity. I interviewed with several and selected Sidley Austin, where I began as a litigator in a 35-person office. My cases included some restructuring matters under Ron Trost, a nationally prominent attorney in the field. I loved him, and I thought the practice was fascinating, so I eventually joined the bankruptcy group. Ron has been a true mentor, and is now like a father to me. My kids call him “Uncle Ronnie.” I first met Ron in the early 1990s and worked very closely with him until he became senior counsel and was heading towards retirement. LD: What did he teach you about becoming a bankruptcy and reorganization lawyer?
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY KATRINA DEWEY KC: Everything. It’s classic for a true mentor. He did not just teach me and serve as an example for me in my practice, but in life. He is a larger-than-life person. In practice, I would say the key things were coming into a complicated situation and trying to simplify it. Getting to the essence of it as quickly as you can. Calming the situation down by providing very early on a simplified and organized, orderly path to a commercial outcome. Which hopefully imposes on your clients some calm and some structure in an otherwise cacophonous situation. Then in life, just living a very, very full life: Don’t just focus on work. Family, hobbies, the arts, etc. Ron lives his life that way. It was always such an example to me, and I have really followed that. LD: What cases do you recall working on with him that turned out to be significant learning experiences for you? KC: There are two that immediately come to mind, although there were many. The very first thing I worked on with him was the El Paso Electric case. The company was the first public utility in modern times to actually go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I was a pretty young partner who had just moved over to the bankruptcy area a few years before, and we teed up a sale of the company that, for a variety of reasons, ended up not happening after about a year in Chapter 11. We had to literally turn the barge and move to a reorganization of the company. That one taught me that you just have to hang in there. The world can come crashing down, and you just have to stay the course. It’s the whole discipline of being orderly, being calm. There’s always a solution. Then the company actually did reorganize. LD: Wow. That’s a stupendous outcome. KC: It was a great thing. But the second case was really, in my view, the turning point of my career in terms of taking that next step that everyone must do to become a first chair. That involved the bankruptcy of Warnaco, which owned Speedo/Authentic Fitness and some other well-known brands including Polo and Calvin Klein, and was run at the time by CEO Linda Wachner. It had $2 billion of bank debt, which isn’t a big deal today, but was unheard of at the time. Ron and I were retained to represent the company. Ron really stepped back, and let me run that matter. We convinced Citibank, which held a lot of the debt, to essentially convert its debt to equity in the company. It was a public company that was then owned essentially by the bank, but we came out of Chapter 11.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
183
500
500 I was dealing with a board of directors that included Harvey Golub, the retired chairman of American Express; Joe Califano, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Carter administration; and Frank Olson, the former CEO of Hertz. This was a blue-chip board. It was tough and difficult. Ron, literally, was there for me. But I ran that matter, and it really launched me into the next level of my career. LD: What drew you to restructuring? I realize it has some of the elements of litigation, but it’s also transactional. KC: It is very much transactional, but there are a lot of court appearances. The way you get to, hopefully, an arrangement that saves the company is often through litigation. I tease our litigators here at Paul Weiss, but it’s absolutely true and they acknowledge it, that I am on my feet in court in front of judges far more often than they are. And that’s true at every firm. To me, it was just the best of both worlds. The aspects of litigation that I wasn’t wild about, which were the heavy document discovery, writing nasty letters back and forth.
LD: You’ve since handled some really high-profile, complex cases, including Sears’ restructuring, for instance. KC: Sears, yes. There are many others, too, including Penn Traffic grocery and AbitibiBowater, the paper products company, during the financial crisis. The Sears opportunity came to us through my partner Paul Basta as the board prepared for the bankruptcy, given all the related-party transactions involving Eddie Lampert, the hedge-fund manager who was the CEO, his funds and others. Paul asked me to work on it with him. We put together a whole team of litigators, led by Lew Clayton. We investigated potential claims against the insiders and others, and filed a lawsuit bringing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of claims. My litigation partner, Lew Clayton, has brilliantly led that litigation for the firm and for the clients. Then we also were intimately involved in the negotiation of the going-concern purchase of the company by Eddie Lampert.
You can’t do that; it’s triage in restructuring. You absolutely have to stake out the positions and tee up litigation in order to either decide critical issues or drive the parties to a resolution. But you don’t get bogged down.
It’s fun. And Paul Weiss is a great firm. What really, absolutely convinced me to come here is that the lateral partnership process is very rigorous. Every partner here has the opportunity to meet a potential lateral partner. You have these meetings in conference rooms, where 10, 15 or 20 Paul Weiss partners come and they meet with you.
LD: Right. You have to mean it a little bit more.
LD: At the same time?
KC: You have to mean it, and you’ll also have to actually, quickly, do it. One of the things our litigators love about our practice is that they’re immediately handling mini-trials. The discovery only lasts a month. It doesn’t last five years. Paul Weiss litigators really enjoy our litigation for that reason. They are a key part of the team we offer to our clients.
KC: At the same time. You start with a few to see whether there’s interest on both sides. But once you get to a point where it appears there is, then we do this thing where everybody gets to meet the candidate. I met probably two-thirds of the partners. I absolutely fell in love with these people. I found them to be brilliant, fascinating, interesting, open-minded and civic- oriented. And for me, as a woman and a gay person, it’s very important that it’s a place that’s focused on social justice, diversity and inclusion. That’s what drew me here in 2003. It has continued since then. You can imagine, for me, what it was like to be here when the Supreme Court ruled on U.S. v. Windsor, deciding that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that the government couldn’t discriminate against gay couples regarding federal benefits and protections.
LD: So how did you come to move to Paul Weiss? KC: As the Warnaco matter was winding up, in 2003, Paul Weiss partner Alan Kornberg reached out to me out of nowhere. I had no intentions of leaving Sidley. None, not a thought. I was on the executive committee there, I was doing very well. After a long, long courtship, I met with him for breakfast at the Carlyle Hotel, basically because I love him. I knew him from Milbank Tweed, when I was a first-year associate and he was an experienced partner. I have always had the highest respect for him. He called me and said, “Would you meet with me, talk?” And I said, “Okay. I’m not leaving Sidley, but I’ll have breakfast with you.” At the time, Bob Drain, Judge Drain, was a partner here, and had decided to go on the bench. The group was looking for somebody who might come in at his vintage and level, which I am, and who had some company-side experience, which I did. Long story short, I came here in 2003.
184
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: That must have been amazing. KC: When I got married, the Windsor case was still pending, and I literally thought while walking down the aisle how grateful I was to be associated with this place. It’s actually unbelievable to me, that in my lifetime, Linda and I were able to get married and have our boys, and I’ve adopted my boys and everything else. The fact that my own law firm was the catalyst for that is astonishing, to this day.
500
Kat Gallagher
Lisa Gilford
BECK REDDEN HOUSTON
SIDLEY LOS ANGELES
Kenneth Gallo
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
James Garner
Thomas Girardi
SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS
GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES
Steven Gavin
Robert Giuffra
WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK
Faith Gay
Donald Godwin
SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK
GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS
Lee Gelernt
David Goldschmidt
ACLU NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Paul Geller
Sandra Goldstein
ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS NEW YORK
Eric George
Elaine Golin
BROWNE GEORGE LOS ANGELES
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Adam Gerchen
Roberto Gonzalez
KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO
PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
185
500
500 Milton Williams WALDEN MACHT (NEW YORK)
186
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
MILTON WILLIAMS MILTON WILLIAMS HAS BUILT A RENOWNED
white-collar defense practice with a focus on regulatory matters, internal investigations, employment disputes and complex commercial litigation. In addition to his private practice, Williams is known for his public service, including a stint as co-chair of the Moreland Commission that investigated political corruption in New York State, and as one of the lead attorneys investigating the tax incentive programs in the State of New Jersey. Williams has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York and an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, and more recently as the deputy general counsel and chief compliance officer for Time Inc. Now a partner at Walden Macht & Haran, Williams is a graduate of University of Michigan Law School. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Milton Williams: I have an unusually diverse litigation practice that includes work on major whitecollar trials as well as compliance, commercial litigation, social justice matters, employment law and other issues as they arise. My current clients range from a public corruption investigation in New Jersey to a family whose child was part of a mock slave auction in Westchester. In between, I represent an array of individuals and businesses facing fraudulent conveyance claims and issues of regulatory compliance. LD: That is an interesting mix! How did that come about? MW: It really just happened. My career path is not something that is the result of any great design. I have tried quite a few cases, and different timely events have shaped the course of my career. I recall one instance when I was involved in a case while at Time Inc. I received a confidential tidbit from a lawyer who I had been adverse to many years earlier, when I was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. I looked into the information that lawyer shared with me and it turned out to be correct. My work on that investigation led to me being promoted to Chief Compliance officer at Time, Inc. So, my career has really morphed and changed by happenstance much more than by design.
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY ALISON PREECE LD: What keeps you excited about the work you do? MW: The competitive element of litigation is really exciting to me, and something I find very satisfying. In the work that I do, anything could ultimately wind up in court or in front of a regulatory board. Being trained and prepared to compete is something that keeps me going every day. You have to be geared up and really practice to perform and persuade. That kind of adrenaline rush really keeps me going. Even outside of the practice of law, the competitive nature of business development and marketing at a mid-sized law firm keeps me excited about what I do every day. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? MW: Two separate but related matters have been among the most interesting in my career. Both stem from an effort to rein in public corruption. The first was the New York corruption case against Joseph Percoco, a top aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and two Syracuse businessmen. It was a very complex case with more than 11 million documents, multiple defendants and legal teams, and the shadow of a completely separate corruption case sitting in the wings. Additionally, the trial drew intense media interest and involved a number of very high-level political figures. It took months to try and in the end, my client was the only individual acquitted of all charges. I am immensely proud of my team’s work on that matter and relieved and happy for our client. LD: That’s an incredible result. MW: Thank you. The acquittal of Joseph Gerardi in the Percoco corruption trial is one of my most important accomplishments over the past two years. I’m incredibly proud to have represented him and happy that he put his trust in me to handle such a critically important case. LD: And the second matter? MW: The second case involves work earlier in my career as co-chair of the Moreland Commission, which was established in July 2013, by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to probe corruption in state government, political campaigns and elections in New York State. The Commission reviewed the
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
187
500
500 188
Charles Googe
Nicholas Groombridge
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Neil Gorsuch
Benjamin Gruenstein
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Ilene Knable Gotts
Robert Gunderson
WACHTELL NEW YORK
GUNDERSON DETTMER REDWOOD CITY, CALIF.
Elizabeth Graham
Nina Gussack
GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.
PEPPER HAMILTON PHILADELPHIA
Nicholas Gravante
Melinda Haag
BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK
ORRICK SAN FRANCISCO
Lori Chambers Gray
Richard Hall
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Melanie Gray
Caitlin Halligan
WINSTON & STRAWN HOUSTON
SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK
Salvatore Graziano
Serena Hallowell
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK
Mark Greene
Claudia Hammerman
CRAVATH NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
adequacy of existing state laws, regulations and procedures involving unethical and unlawful misconduct by public officials and the electoral process and campaign finance laws. The Commission was directed to make recommendations to toughen and improve existing laws and procedures. Despite the Commission ending after just nine months of work, we issued a report which I believe put a spotlight on public corruption and raised a lot of unanswered questions about how business is done in Albany. It was a very powerful experience for me and really impacted how I view our public institutions. LD: With your bird’s eye view of litigation work, are you seeing any broad trends in the industry? MW: We are witnessing a dramatic change in the way clients select legal services. For a variety of reasons, corporate clients appear to be more focused on hiring the right lawyer for the job and breaking away from simply engaging the same “brand name” firm that historically provided all legal services to a client. Companies are looking to staff matters with leaner teams and make their legal spend much more cost effective while still demanding the same high quality work. This creates a terrific niche for a firm like ours. Personally, I know recently I’ve worked with co-counsel that are billing at rates much higher than ours and we have as much, if not more, experience as they do handling similar matters. Our mission as a firm is to make larger companies comfortable with hiring us for bet-the-farm matters. LD: Can you talk about a case you’re currently handling? MW: My partners and I are working on behalf of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s task force investigating that state’s Economic Development Authority’s controversial tax incentive program. The task force was formed following the release of the State Comptroller’s audit of the program, which revealed startling deficiencies in monitoring and oversight. The Task Force’s mission is to further explore the findings of the Comptroller’s audit and provide the public with a full accounting of how and why basic controls were lacking in a program that left New Jersey taxpayers on the hook for up to $11 billion. If necessary, the Task Force may refer matters to the law enforcement or other regulatory authorities. LD: What are some challenges of working on a case involving public figures and a scrutinized government program?
MW: This is an incredibly complex situation with a variety of interests at stake. Anytime you have a matter that is high profile with government entities there are always intangibles that fall outside of what you might find in a typical internal investigation matter. The mix of politics and media, along with sensitivities with governmental personnel, has placed everything about this matter under heavy scrutiny. We need to be very sensitive about doing anything that would unfairly cast aspersions on an individual or an institution. The whole dynamic takes it to another level. LD: But this isn’t exactly new ground for you. MW: Not really. Much of it is very similar to what I did earlier in my career with the Moreland Commission in New York. LD: Looking back at early experiences, what led you to pursue a career in the law in the first place? MW: My father was a judge and I think my decision to enter the legal profession had a lot to do with him. I accompanied him to the office and court when he was both a lawyer and a Judge so I received a lot of exposure to lawyers, judges and legal proceedings from a very early age. Additionally, my work as an undergraduate at Amherst College really helped me to become a critical thinker and problem solver. I took a course in Philosophy (Logic) during the fall of my senior year and, although I didn’t realize it at the time, it really came into play when I had to cross examine a witness in the DA’s office. I needed to always think two steps ahead and consider “if he says this” or “he says that” I’ll be able to respond with the appropriate questions to secure testimony that I can cite to when summing up before a jury. That course really helped me to be able to anticipate what witnesses are going to say and paid lots of dividends later in my career. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose University of Michigan over another law school? MW: I wanted to go someplace big and chose Michigan. As a child, my family moved quite a few times and I grew up in four of the five boroughs of New York City. Every borough but Brooklyn. I attended Monsignor Farrell High School in Staten Island, N.Y., an all-boys Catholic school founded in 1961. Then I went to Amherst College, a relatively small college, so I thought it would be fun to try something different. I really enjoyed attending a big university (albeit a small law school in terms of students – 1100) and it turned out to be everything I wanted it to be.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
189
500
500 LD: What sort of practice did you imagine for yourself while in law school? MW: I was an Economics major and was initially drawn towards bankruptcy and commercial law. That changed over the course of my law school experience and my first jobs as an attorney. LD: Was there a course or professor that was particularly memorable or important in what practice you chose? MW: Professor J.J. White at the University of Michigan (the former Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law who retired in 2012) had a deep impact on my career. Prof. White was one of the nation’s top scholars in the field of commercial law, so much so that one of his books, “Uniform Commercial Code,” is among the most widely recognized treatises on the subject. I took four courses with him including contracts, commercial transactions, and debtors and creditors. He was an amazing teacher who showed students that there was a practical application to everything we were learning. He gave me some anchors to show me the practical application for many of the theories we were studying. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? MW: Pick an area of law that you like and develop it as a craft or an art. See where it takes you. Don’t let money be the driving force in your entire career. The practice of law is a craft or an art that has to be slowly developed over time. When something is a craft or an art, you love doing it and put your whole self into it. Sometimes, it might give back, sometimes it may disappoint. But because you love it you will keep at it. LD: Was there an early mentor who helped shape the course of your professional life? MW: Eugene J. Porcaro, the bureau chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office (now the senior supervising attorney), was a very early mentor of mine. He really taught me how to try a case and mentored me throughout my time at the D.A.’s office. He was my trial coach during the time I was there, and I learned a great deal under his guidance. LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation or case that you admire, and why? MW: Three lawyers in particular – Ron Fischetti, a partner with Fischetti & Malgieri LLP; Chuck Ross, a
190
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
partner with Mintz & Gold LLP; and Bruce Maffeo at Cozen O’Connor are professionals who I truly admire for their skill and talent. Each of them represented different defendants in trials while I was at the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. There is a tremendous difference between trying a case mechanically and the art of trying a case. All of them had the art form down and were truly talented in the courtroom. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? Or, how do you think others see you? MW: Very straightforward and pragmatic. Always interested in discussing settlement, but someone who is ready to fight and not afraid if the fight has to happen. LD: Can you walk us through your career path to date? MW: After law school, I worked as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. I then joined the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York as a federal prosecutor. From there, I moved into private practice with a small firm before going in house at Time Inc. to serve as Deputy General Counsel and then Chief Compliance Officer. I later joined a firm, Vladeck, Raskin & Clark specializing in employment law, and white collar criminal matters. After more than eight years at Vladeck, I moved to Walden Macht & Haran in May of 2017 as a partner. LD: What are some of the challenges you face in your current leadership role at Walden Macht? MW: Making sure that all of the younger lawyers are actively engaged, have interesting work, and have a good work life balance. It is very important to me that the lawyers I work with have a life outside of the law. I have always had that perspective. You need something else in your life. There is tremendous pressure to get a lot of work done as a lawyer and it is easy to lose sight of how hard people around you are working. But it can’t be that way the entire year. Sure, there are going to be periods of incredible intensity, but it can’t be all the time. You cannot sprint the entire five miles in a cross country race, or else you risk burning out young lawyers who have great potential. LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your practice or firm in the coming months or years? MW: I hope to continue to collaborate with my partners to jointly bring in work with the idea of
500
making it interesting and profitable for the firm. Any lawyer in private practice will tell you that you can never have enough business. You always need to be developing business and, if you get it, you find a way to make it work. And that’s why the work life balance can be very challenging. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you try to “sell” about your firm to potential recruits – how is it unique? MW: We have a unique client focus on budgets and have always staffed our matters to deliver the best possible results within a budget that allows the client to be pleased with both the outcome and the final invoice. The competition for cases varies from matter to matter, but the trend is that we are now vying for cases against much larger firms. We have almost 40 lawyers and several non-lawyer professionals on our team. This enables us to successfully compete for any engagement, from discrete investigations to bet-the-company litigation and monitorships. Similarly, we take a very innovative and progressive approach to training and firm management that can be directly credited to our growth and efficiency. Our junior associates are trained and mentored in a way that is consistent with how things would work at a US Attorney’s Office. This includes providing associates with opportunities to be on their feet in court, take depositions and handle oral arguments with appropriate supervision. From a management standpoint, we reach consensus as a democratic partnership on thorny issues, including the creation of a compensation model that reflects our values. At the same time, we have taken a proactive approach to tamping down internal partner competition with fair rules on sharing originations and making certain that everyone’s voice is heard on the firm’s business. All of this adds up to a structure that is anchored in principles that have really contributed to a firm culture of which we are proud.
where associates are categorized by their class years like steps on a ladder. We do not have third-years reporting to fifth-years and then up to a senior counsel or partner. Instead, we have assembled a team of lawyers who operate and collaborate together. Our associates expect to be treated as lawyers and leaders - not as pure subordinates - and we expect them to create the highest quality work-product regardless of how many years it has been since they graduated law school. We provide substantial real-time training and feedback and find it to be an extremely effective way to develop young talent and deliver great results for our clients. LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? MW: I am on the board, and am the former chair, of the Fund for Modern Courts, an independent statewide court reform organization committed to improving the judicial system for all New Yorkers. I am also on the board of New York Lawyers Assistance Group (NYLAG), Prisoners Legal Services (PLS), and the Office of Appellate Defender (OAD). I am a member of The New York State Governor’s Screening Panel for the First Department Appellate Division, and The New York City Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary Additionally, I am a member of the Southern District of New York Attorney Grievance Committee, which hears complaints against lawyers in the Southern District of New York, and Vice Chairperson of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Department of the New York State Unified Court System. LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system? MW: The films “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Presumed Innocent” are among my favorites. In the end of both movies there was justice. In “Mockingbird” it was pure justice. “Presumed Innocent” has a twist on justice in the end but it was equally as appealing.
LD: How has firm management changed since you joined Walden Macht?
LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now?
MW: We have seen a substantial change in the recruiting environment for new talent over the past few years. This includes a steady stream of exceptional resumes flowing into our firm. We affirmatively seek to secure candidates with meaningful work and life experiences. We want to hire associates that can handle a fast pace and are eager to learn and develop the craft. We do not subscribe to the model
MW: Probably teaching or coaching. Maybe teaching history or government to kids between 10 and 14 and coaching basketball and tennis. I attended Catholic schools for twelve years, and saw the importance of mentoring and teaching from members of the clergy and lay personnel who really cared. I’d like to pass some of that on to the next generation if I had a chance.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
191
Elaine Golin WACHTELL (NEW YORK)
500
ELAINE GOLIN MANY OF THE BEST LAWYERS
we’ve written about knew they wanted to be lawyers at an early age, perhaps following in a parent’s footpath. For others, their entry in the legal profession is rooted more in chance. That was the case for Elaine Golin, who after abandoning an academic career – the path favored by her parents – found a job as a research librarian at Cravath. That Golin became hooked on the law will come as no surprise to anybody who has followed her career at Wachtell Lipton. Among her many achievements, Golin played a lead role in orchestrating Bank of America’s creative and successful settlements of the massive claims arising from Countrywide-issued mortgage-backed securities. These days, the Columbia Law School graduate is putting her experience to work for Cardinal Health in claims related to the opioid epidemic. Lawdragon: Can you tell our readers about what types of matters are taking up your time these days? Elaine Golin: One thing that is consuming a lot of my time is the wave of litigation surrounding the opioid epidemic. I, together with my partners Jeff Wintner and Bill Savitt and a great team here at Wachtell Lipton, serve as strategic and governance counsel to Cardinal Health, a pharmaceutical distributor. We are guiding them through a challenging litigation and regulatory environment. In addition to advising on overall strategy, including making sure we are putting our best litigation foot forward, part of my job in these situations is to explore and evaluate whether there are resolution opportunities that make sense for my clients, so that they can begin to put a tough moment in time behind them. I also try to help assess risk and advise on governance and risk going forward. In this way, my work on the opioid epidemic, which is obviously very different than the financial crisis, has some similarities from a counseling perspective to my work on mortgages. For better or worse, when there is a national problem, a number of parties, including governmental entities, look for institutions to blame. The judicial system may not be the best place to address these issues, but that’s where many of them end up. In those situations, it’s important for companies to take a holistic view of addressing the problem at hand, and that’s a very important part of what I and my colleagues at Wachtell Lipton do. LD: What is the status of the RMBS litigation?
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY JOHN RYAN EG: Though the financial crisis seems very long ago, RMBS litigation is not over. Most of the major cases and issues have been resolved, but some matters continue to wind their way through the court system. And opportunistic lawyers and investors are still trying to come up with creative legal strategies to try to squeeze the last dime out of those securitizations. When the plaintiffs get creative, I have to get creative! So I still spend time on that, and on counseling my bank clients on other issues that are the legacy of the financial crisis. LD: Let’s talk more about that and some of the topics raised in your recent “Lessons Learned” article. Given the depth of the financial crisis, and some of the bad facts and resentment against financial institutions, why do you think you and other lawyers for the institutions were able to successfully manage the potential fallout that such massive litigation threatened? EG: I think there were several things that were key there. There were some court decisions that really helped, and of course some that hurt. Early on, we won, on behalf of Bank of America and Countrywide, the Walnut Place case, which clearly established that RMBS investors couldn’t bring breach of contract suits in their own right, but had to comply with the contracts and work through the securitization trustees. That was key in limiting the amount of litigation that was filed. There was also very good law developed at the First Department and the New York Court of Appeals on the statute of limitations, and other key points. Together, those things helped limit the size of the problem. Another key factor in any of these situations is the importance of being both honest and tough in the wide range of negotiations that you find yourself in with a wide variety of governmental and private actors. Relationships of trust – in the sense of integrity – are key, but you also can’t be seen as a pushover. Finally, but not least important by any means, the client is key. The leadership that I worked with at Bank of America, both the legal team and the business people, were creative and thoughtful and empowered to try to get results. Not every company is going to respond well to crisis, but they really did. LD: You’ve mentioned how lawyers on both sides used legal “innovations” to help successfully move through and settle the claims. Can you elaborate on that? EG: Together with our settlement counterparties at Mayer Brown and Gibbs & Bruns, I and my colleagues
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
193
500
500 at Wachtell dusted off older principles and statutes pertaining to trust law, and were able to use what are really hornbook trust law concepts to settle RMBS claims in bulk. In the case of Countrywide, our 530-trust settlement, which was approved in full by the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, was the first bulk settlement of its kind. If 530 cases had had to wind their way through litigation, it would have been enormously taxing to the parties on both sides, as well as overwhelming for the court system. That was eight years ago, but I’m still proud of that. In general, I think that the challenge that all parties faced with RMBS is that – as is likely the case in many commercial contexts – the contracts that formed the basis of the relationships were not carefully scrutinized by many market participants, and certainly not the subject of litigation, until that world collapsed. Then, everyone had to figure out how to make their best arguments under the complex provisions of those contracts, writing on a blank slate from a case law perspective much of the time. It brought out some good thinking on both sides! LD: What would seem to be incredibly complicated about working on that litigation is all the different groups of claimants and government agencies involved. Can you comment broadly on the challenges of handling that on the defense side? EG: The first thing any Board of Directors wants to know before approving any large settlement is “What’s left – how much peace are we achieving?” That’s true in any situation, but magnified multiple times when you have the scale of the mortgage crisis. One of the challenges (and satisfactions) of working with clients in those situations is helping internal business and legal people build out the whole jigsaw puzzle. That’s why I say this kind of work needs to be approached holistically.
in the planning stages of decision making. But human nature is human nature – if investors lose money in another crisis, they are going to look for ways to get someone else to pay. But I do see a very considered approach to risk, and contracts, and an increased voice for internal and external legal in business decision making which one hopes would mitigate the impacts of a future crisis. LD: Did you think of doing anything different after getting a degree in literature? How did your interest in law school develop? Did you know during law school that you wanted to be a litigator? EG: Interestingly, in college, I always thought I’d get a Ph.D. and teach literature. My parents were academics and I loved my undergraduate studies at Yale. But then I went to Scotland to do graduate work in literature, and found that the isolating nature of graduate studies was not for me. Working alone in a library for weeks on end didn’t bring out the best in me – I needed people and interaction and collaboration and even conflict. I came back to New York, and looked for work while I tried to figure out a different plan. Thanks to some prior experience with online research, I fortuitously ended up with a job as a research librarian at Cravath. In those days, 1992 -1993, librarians were the only ones who really knew how to use Lexis, and Westlaw, and the other emerging online databases. So I worked very closely with a lot of the Cravath lawyers on research projects. I loved it – I loved reading cases, I loved being part of a team with incredibly smart lawyers, and I loved the crazy ‘round-the-clock adrenaline energy of a great law firm. I took the LSAT… and the rest is history. LD: Can you discuss your path to Wachtell? Why did you want to practice here and what has kept you?
LD: The regulatory environment has changed since the crisis. Can you share some big-picture thoughts about how another crisis – even if not as severe – might unfold differently now?
EG: I like to say that I came for the work and stayed for the people. As a law student, I was very intrigued by the then one-to-one partner-associate ratio and the reputation the firm had both for getting the “bet-thecompany” work and for giving people very substantive work early on. I had a lot of loans, and the compensation structure did not hurt either. The work did not disappoint – it was as exciting as I expected and I had a lot of responsibility, and a lot of voice, from day one. While the quality of the lawyering did not surprise me, the friendships I formed and have kept did. The firm’s structure, and lockstep compensation at each level of seniority, really promote collaboration rather than competition, and that is pretty unique these days.
EG: I think the approach to risk has changed. Financial institutions are more willing to include “lessons learned”
As a partner, I could not ask for more interesting and challenging work, or for better, more appreciative cli-
In the mortgage crisis, I often worked with amazing lawyers from other law firms who were handling one case or set of cases for Bank of America. I love those relationships, and it has been a privilege to see some of the best legal minds in the country at work. But my role is to see how the implications of an argument, a ruling, a settlement or anything else would play out across the entire gamut of challenges the Bank faced, and in some cases is still facing. It’s very interesting.
194
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
ents. I am one of the few people I know who enjoys coming to work most mornings. And I continue to benefit from the firm’s unique structure, including getting to work with some of most talented associates in the world. I also can’t overemphasize the excellence of the support staff here – everyone, from my assistant to the people in accounting to the paralegals to the folks in the mailroom, is truly outstanding. I get approached about going elsewhere, but no woman is an island. I know that I could not be the lawyer I am without all of the other people I work with at Wachtell, lawyers and non-lawyers alike. LD: Was there a case early in your career that stands out as particularly memorable or important to your development as a lawyer? EG: There were several! But for these purposes, I’ll mention IBP v. Tyson. In that case, in an extremely expedited Delaware Chancery proceeding, we won, after trial, specific performance of a merger agreement on behalf of our client IBP. In the best Wachtell fashion, it was a great team effort that brought together a sort of “Who’s Who” group of our litigation partners, with a lot of input and collaboration from our corporate colleagues. I was a junior associate, but I learned an enormous amount – by doing – about managing discovery, prepping witnesses, defending depositions, writing briefs on an incredibly tight schedule and putting on a trial. I was very grateful to the judge, then Vice Chancellor Leo Strine, who recognized all the “invisible labor” that junior associates put in, and refused to hold argument on certain discovery disputes unless I was present to do the arguing. That was when I got comfortable on my feet in a courtroom. LD: Along those same lines, were there any mentors who played a big role in your career? EG: Again, many, and I hate to leave someone out. The judge I clerked for, Judge Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit, was tough, practical and a very crisp writer. I knew that there wouldn’t be a lot of women role models at Wachtell in 1997, so I sought out a female judge, and she was a great teacher. Barbara Robbins was, when I joined the firm, our only female litigation partner, and she was a wonderful mentor as well. But I have been fortunate to have had the generous mentorship of many of the male partners at Wachtell who have pushed me to do my best, and who have given me a voice and opportunities for leadership from the very beginning. My firm sometimes in the past got a bad rap on gender issues – it was an issue I had many questions about when I was interviewing, such as where are your women
lawyers? But these partners wanted me to succeed as much as I did myself. There are too many to name, but Bernie Nussbaum, Eric Roth, Ted Mirvis, and Marc Wolinsky certainly stand out from my time as an associate. LD: Are there ways you can discuss in which you have sought to mentor younger lawyers yourself? EG: I think the best mentorships are organic. I get to know the associates I work with very well, and I try to always be a real human being with them, and not just a boss. I let them see how the sausage gets made, and try to encourage them to take responsibility and ownership. The nature of law firm practice is that many more associates end up leaving than staying, and an important part of mentoring is helping people figure out what career path is right for them. It’s great to watch my former associates flourish all over the country. I have an alumni party (almost) every year for the veterans of my matters, and it’s one of my favorite things. I also get different opportunities to speak to groups of young women, and that’s very rewarding. I try to encourage young women, whether lawyers or not, to perceive the world as a place of adventure and challenge, and not as a potential source of trauma. I tell them to take up space in the world, and to “say it with confidence.” I think they think I’m an old-fashioned sort of feminist, but that’s ok. LD: Beyond mentoring in the law, can you please talk about your interest and role in the Sadie Nash Leadership Project, or any other public interest engagements? EG: I’ve been on the Board of the Sadie Nash Leadership Project for about six years now, and just joined the Board of Mobilization for Justice this year. I’m a firm believer that we should be giving back, all the time. Sadie Nash is a great organization – unabashedly feminist leadership education for high-school-aged New York City and Newark women, primarily young women of color. I like the positivity and sense of community that is fostered at Sadie Nash, and that 80% of our alumnae complete college, almost all as first-gen college goers. What I bring to the table is my practical lawyer sensibility. I ask the tough questions. It’s a good fit. Mobilization for Justice is a legal services organization here in New York City, and I’m still learning the ropes of what is a much bigger and better established organization than Sadie Nash. But in this era, giving less empowered populations good legal representation is more important than ever, and I’m proud to support the work that Mobilization for Justice does. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/11/05/lawyerlimelight-elaine-golin.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
195
500
500 196
Angela Graves Harrington
Emily Johnson Henn
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
COVINGTON & BURLING PALO ALTO
James Harrington
Edward Herlihy
HARRINGTON & MAHONEY BUFFALO
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Erica Harris
Skip Herman
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO
Geoffrey Harrison
Lynne Hermle
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
ORRICK MENLO PARK, CALIF.
Natasha Harrison
Lina Hidalgo
BOIES SCHILLER LONDON
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Stephen Hasegawa
Anita Hill
PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Michael Hausfeld
Kevin Hodges
HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sean Hecker
Alan Hoffman
KAPLAN HECKER NEW YORK
BLANK ROME PHILADELPHIA
Richard Heimann
Mary Beth Hogan
LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO
DEBEVOISE NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Lela Hollabaugh
Keith Hummel
BRADLEY ARANT NASHVILLE
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Cassandra Holleman
James Hurst
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
KIRKLAND CHICAGO
Shawn Chapman Holley
Sherrilyn Ifill
KINSELLA WEITZMAN SANTA MONICA
NAACP-LDF NEW YORK
Ellen Holloman
William Isaacson
CADWALADER NEW YORK
BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.
Hillary Holmes
Jason Itkin
GIBSON DUNN HOUSTON
ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON
Patricia Brown Holmes
J. Eric Ivester
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Deneen Howell
Maria “Terri” Jackson
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Heidi Hubbard
Jameel Jaffer
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK
Erica Hughes
Dani James
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
197
500
500 Ryan Dzierniejko SKADDEN (NEW YORK) 198
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
RYAN DZIERNIEJKO COMPANIES OF TEN HIRE SK ADDEN
not to implement an obvious or preset course for growth and financing, but to tap into the firm’s creative talent for crafting the best possible deal for their unique competitive environments and business needs. That’s where capital markets partner Ryan Dzierniejko excels, and why the Lawdragon 500 member often keeps strong relationships with clients from their early pre-IPO days through later phases of maturity. Dzierniejko graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and worked in Skadden’s Toronto office before transferring to New York. He has worked on several of the biggest IPOs and corporate financings of the past several years. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Ryan Dzierniejko: At Skadden, I help companies access the U.S. capital markets. Said differently, I work with them to raise money by selling securities – whether that’s stock, debt or some type of hybrid investment. I represent companies at all stages of their lifecycles, from private companies looking to sell stock to venture capital funds, to companies contemplating initial public offerings, to Fortune 500 companies looking to issue investment grade debt. Sometimes, a company will call me with a clear plan in place for a transaction they’d like to complete, and I work with them to execute it accordingly. But increasingly, I find myself on the phone with clients who have very clear goals for their business, but are less certain about the specific steps and timing needed to raise capital and implement their plans. I love advising these clients on developing a strategy for executing their vision. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? RD: I always wanted a career that would allow me to build relationships with people and work toward common goals as part of a team. I couldn’t be happier about my decision to become a capital markets lawyer in this regard. In my first capital markets deal, an IPO, I quickly realized that to be successful in this area I would need a broad IQ and EQ skillset, including an ability to build consensus among many constituents. Fifteen years later, my days are spent helping multiple stakeholders navigate transactions, each from their particular perspective. In addition to working closely
PHOTO BY: JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA
BY JOHN RYAN with clients’ in-house legal teams, I regularly meet with boards to discuss governance considerations and with finance teams and investment bankers to negotiate the terms of specific securities. I also collaborate with clients’ accountants to ensure that their accounting disclosures are compliant with the relevant rules, and advise investor relations teams on the development of accurate and appropriate messaging about a deal and its implications. To be successful in the work I do, I need to keep the clients’ broader business objectives in mind, while understanding — and, importantly, anticipating — the specific interests of each party involved. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What keeps you excited about it? RD: I love the variety of my practice, but I particularly enjoy working on IPOs. In the past few years, I have been fortunate to advise on a number of high-profile IPOs, including for Shopify — which has been the best performing IPO in the past five years — and The Match Group. There is no moment more defining for a private company than its IPO debut. It’s often the first time the company unveils its business to the world with a meaningful disclosure document. The prospectus needs to tell the company’s story in a way that checks all of the boxes under securities laws, while also resonating with investors. We help clients adhere to the countless rules that apply to this process and work through the accounting issues that inevitably arise. The end result — a successful IPO — is tremendously rewarding, and I find being on this journey with a client from start to finish very fulfilling. With many clients, the relationships I’ve forged through this process have endured for years on both a professional and a personal level. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice with the types of transactions you are handling? RD: Ten years ago, Skadden didn’t work with as many pre-IPO companies as we do now. In the past, companies typically called us when they were ready to “graduate” to becoming a public company. But as companies have trended toward staying private longer, we’re advising more late-stage private companies. It’s fascinating work that entails a lot of strategizing and collaboration. Often, our main goal is to prepare the
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
199
500
500 I A LWAY S WA N T E D A C A R E E R T H AT W OUL D ALLOW ME TO BUILD REL ATIONSHIP S WITH PEOPLE AND WORK TOWARD COMMON GOAL S A S PART OF A TE A M. private company for an exit down the road, whether that’s an IPO or a sale. Each proposed step of the process needs to be evaluated based on how it ultimately will position the company for success in meeting this goal. I advise clients on the latest trends in deal terms and help them determine whether a new or popular structure will best position them to remain nimble in terms of their long-term business strategies. There are a lot of different structures and paths a company can pursue. It’s about identifying the best way forward, not just for the moment in time when the capital is raised but for the long-term business needs of the client. LD: Can you describe a recent matter that you’ve handled? RD: This past year has been a busy one for IPOs. In March, I represented JPMorgan and others in the year’s first technology IPO: the upsized IPO of Lightspeed, a point-of-sale software provider for retailers and e-commerce businesses. This was the largest Canadian tech IPO in the past ten years. In June, I advised the underwriters on the successful IPO of Fiverr, the world’s largest freelance services marketplace. I also was recently involved in leading the WeWork IPO. And I advised the underwriters on the $2.25 billion IPO of XP Investimentos, a fast-growing retail brokerage in Brazil, which is the fourth largest IPO of 2019. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? RD: My advice for current law students would be to spend time — in school and early in their careers — exploring a variety of different subjects that interest them. There are a lot of practice areas at big law firms, and gaining experience in as many of them as possible as a summer student or junior associate is a great idea. Students should take ownership of their careers by volunteering for assignments that involve clients in industries that interest them, by seeking out time with senior associates, counsel and partners,
200
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
and by getting involved in pro bono matters and social activities that give them a chance to expand their networks. Finding one’s preferred subject can start with identifying a specific skillset one wants to use — for me, it was relationship- and consensusbuilding — and then finding an area of law that heavily utilizes that skillset. We all put a lot of time in at the office, so it’s important that those hours are spent in a way that you find meaningful and rewarding. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? RD: The practice of law has changed significantly since I was a junior associate 15 years ago. When I started, lawyers were seen primarily as the gatekeepers and interpreters of rules and processes. Unless they had prior experience with the nuances of capital markets transactions, when clients called their outside counsel, they effectively were at their mercy to explain the rules and processes and then guide them through the transaction. Now, in part, due to the volume of information available online, it is rare for a client to call with these basic questions. Most clients already have done their homework or have reviewed other third-party materials and familiarized themselves with the fundamentals before reaching out to outside counsel for assistance. As a result, the goalposts by which clients judge a strong capital markets lawyer have moved. It’s no longer enough to just know how to do a deal. You now need to know the most strategic and efficient way to navigate that client’s particular fact pattern. It’s a great way to differentiate the best capital markets lawyers – as those who are able to provide bespoke advice with the client’s priorities and objectives in mind. LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? RD: I would own a construction company. I’ve always enjoyed building and fixing things.
500
Rachel Jensen
Allan Kanner
ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO
KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS
James Johnson
Roberta Kaplan
LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK
KAPLAN HECKER NEW YORK
Jeh Johnson
Alex Karakatsanis
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Megan Jones
Brad Karp
HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Phyllis Jones
David Karp
COVINGTON & BURLING WASHINGTON, D.C.
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Tonya Jones
Neal Katyal
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Nora Jordan
David Katz
DAVIS POLK NEW YORK
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Elena Kagan
Brett Kavanaugh
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meredith Kane
Skip Keesal
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
KEESAL YOUNG LONG BEACH, CALIF.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
201
500
500 Lisa Laukitis SKADDEN (NEW YORK)
202
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
LISA LAUKITIS SKADDEN PARTNERS SUCCESSFULLY
handle an expansive range of complex deals and cases over the course of any given year. The restructuring practice of Lisa Laukitis is a microcosm of that astonishing mix of matters and clients, touching on a wide variety of businesses and industries – as she explains, from mining chemicals to Twinkie-making. The 1999 University of Dayton School of Law graduate enjoys the consistent state of learning her practice brings, as well as the chance to represent both companies and investors. In the unpredictable world of restructurings, Laukitis says, chances are high that her next multifaceted representation will become her favorite.
Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Lisa Laukitis: For over 20 years, I’ve represented a mix of companies and private equity and hedge fund investors. When advising a company, I focus on the broad goals of helping the board and management team understand and properly exercise their fiduciary duties and maximizing the value of the company for the benefit of all of its constituents. That role involves educating the client, analyzing multiple potential scenarios, and coordinating the efforts of a multitude of individuals and professionals toward a common purpose. On the other hand, when representing an investor, I have just one party’s goals in mind and am looking to help them strategically to maximize their investment. These two aspects of my practice are very different yet very complementary. Acquiring a depth of experience advising on one side of a restructuring gives me a higher likelihood of success when I am sitting in the opposite role. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? LL: Restructuring tends to be a very cutting-edge field, and it provides many opportunities for creativity and the application of game theory. The law is constantly changing and developing. It’s a great practice area for those who are intellectually curious because you must get into the weeds to understand how a business operates, including its regulatory or other requirements; why it has been challenged; and what needs to happen to make it successful in the future. Every deal is unique, each company has different obstacles to overcome, and the identity and perspectives of the parties at the table can greatly change the dynamics and outcome. In recent years, I have worked with companies that mined and pro-
PHOTO BY: JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA
BY JOHN RYAN cessed molybdenum, manufactured fragrances, baked Twinkies, generated power and fished for anchovies, among many others. The work provides countless opportunities for learning something new. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice? LL: It’s becoming increasingly common for non-U.S. companies to try to utilize U.S. bankruptcy laws in connection with restructuring matters. LD: Would you please describe a recent matter that you’ve handled and some of the challenges involved? LL: I currently am representing the Chapter 11 trustee for a Peruvian anchovy fishing company. This case (known as China Fishery) presents some unusual challenges. The entities filed Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. despite having no U.S. operations or assets other than funds held in an attorney trust account. After a protracted battle with their lenders, a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed at one of the Singaporean entities, which is the direct and indirect owner of the most valuable business operations in the corporate structure. However, the usual Chapter 11 tools are not available to us due to some jurisdictional challenges — mainly that Peruvian law does not permit Peruvian companies to file insolvency proceedings outside of Peru, and courts there will not implement a plan of reorganization or similar order from a foreign insolvency proceeding. This leaves us unable to compromise debt without creditor consent. There also are challenges associated with the fact that other entities in the corporate chain that we do not represent or control are listed on the Hong Kong and Singapore exchanges and have their own particular requirements for approval of major transactions (and more routine corporate governance matters) that could come into play during the case. This is a prime example of the jurisdictional and regulatory complications of crossborder restructurings. LD: What do you think will be the impact of the case? LL: It should cause companies to do some careful analysis before assuming that a U.S. Chapter 11 is going to solve all their problems. LD: Why did you first pursue a career in the law? LL: As an undergrad, I majored in microbiology and planned to become a doctor. However, I graduated from college a year early and made a snap decision to see if law school might be a good fit for me. What I have
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
203
500
500 RESTRUC TURING TENDS TO BE A VERY CUT TING-EDGE FIELD, AND IT PROVIDES MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATIVIT Y AND THE APPLICATION OF GAME THEORY. THE LAW IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING AND DEVELOPING. long since realized is that, while I have a genuine love of science, my analytical and problem-solving skills and love of writing were much better suited to practicing law. I enjoy negotiating and love advocating for my clients in court. I also really value the human aspect of working alongside my client toward a common goal.
cooperative. These are qualities I value in colleagues and adversaries and try always to bring to the table myself. In the restructuring practice, you can’t always predict everything that might happen, but remaining calm and collected has allowed me to find solutions in even the most volatile situations.
LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life?
Remaining nimble throughout a restructuring process is of paramount importance. While some situations call for me to take a harder line and be prepared for tough negotiations or aggressive litigation, my first instinct is typically to try to find a cost-effective, efficient solution that satisfies both parties.
LL: I have been very lucky to have found many great mentors throughout my career. An early mentor from a firm at which I worked while in law school encouraged me to leave Ohio and accept a corporate restructuring position in New York City. Mentors during my associate years really invested in me, taught me about the practice and challenged me to do top-quality work. They also encouraged me to take a lead role in matters when they thought I was ready. My current mentor has been an incredible sponsor and sounding board for more than a decade and has helped me enhance my business generation and leadership skills. LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as a “favorite” for certain reasons? LL: Often, my favorite case is the one I’m currently working on, because I’m invigorated by each new challenge and thrive when completely entrenched in negotiating an agreement. We build close relationships with our clients and the other professionals on a deal, whom we may speak with several times a day, which adds a personal element to my practice that I find incredibly fulfilling. The value of a company is maximized when it’s able to continue operations, which also means that jobs are saved. While I rarely get to meet more than a few of the employees at the companies I work with, I’m really proud of the impact I have by helping to keep a company’s doors open. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? Or, how do you think others see you? LL: I think both clients and adversaries would say that I am even-keeled, calm under pressure, collaborative and
204
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: Can you tell us a bit more about your career path and how you arrived at your current position? What do you like about Skadden in terms of culture or other characteristics? LL: I have worked at other large firms before Skadden, and over the years, I’ve sought to acquire more debtor work, expand my practice and take on leadership roles. I’m thrilled that my path led me to Skadden. The culture of collaboration and creativity is inspiring, the breadth and depth of its talent are unparalleled, and an unwavering commitment to excellence and to putting the clients’ interests above all else is reflected in all the work the firm handles. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? LL: I’m a passionate cook. There is little I enjoy more than planning a meal, spending a Saturday afternoon prepping and cooking, and then enjoying it with a full table of family and friends. LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? Please tell us what you find meaningful about your time serving them. LL: I just wrapped up my third term on the board of the Lower East Side Girls Club. Spending nearly a decade working to improve educational and extracurricular opportunities for girls from low-income families in the city I call home has been incredibly rewarding.
500
Ashley Keller
David Kistenbroker
KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO
DECHERT CHICAGO
Christopher Keller
Adam Klein
LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
Jennifer Keller
Eric Klein
KELLER/ANDERLE LLP IRVINE, CALIF.
SHEPPARD MULLIN LOS ANGELES
David Kelley
Gayle Klein
DECHERT NEW YORK
MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK
Michael Kelly
Jeffrey Klein
WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO
WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK
Erika Kelton
Ethan Klingsberg
PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK
Jeffrey Kessler
Jamie Kocis
WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK
KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK
Richard Kim
Linda Kornfeld
WACHTELL NEW YORK
BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES
Sang Kim
Philip Korologos
DLA EAST PALO ALTO
BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
205
Caitlin Halligan SELENDY & GAY (NEW YORK)
500
CAITLIN HALLIGAN FEW LAW FIRMS OPERATING AT THE TOP
of the profession have ever stacked their rosters of talent as quickly and impressively as Selendy & Gay, which was co-founded by renowned litigators Philippe Selendy and Faith Gay in 2018. When building out its appellate strength, the litigation boutique could not have scored better than Caitlin Halligan, who joined the firm earlier this year from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Halligan, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, served an eight-year stint in the New York Attorney General’s office, including six years as New York’s Solicitor General, and four years as General Counsel of the New York County District Attorney’s Office. She left that office in 2013 to join Gibson Dunn, where she co-chaired the firm’s highly touted appellate practice. Halligan is no stranger to trial-level work and, keeping with the young firm’s core values, to litigating a wide array of pro bono matters. The mix of cases at Selendy & Gay is a natural fit for Halligan, who pursued a law career after witnessing first-hand one of her generation’s most public human rights abuses. Lawdragon: Were there early experiences that led you toward a career in law? Caitlin Halligan: After graduation, I received a fellowship to teach at a university in Central China. It was my first time out of the country, and I spent a year there teaching history and writing and traveling around Asia. At the time, I planned to go to graduate school to study history when I returned – definitely not law school! In 1989, I ended up in the middle of the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. Watching my Chinese friends put so much on the line to question their government was a remarkable experience and helped me to appreciate just how valuable it is to have the freedom to engage on public issues and challenge our own government when we disagree. As a result, when I returned to the U.S., I went to work on Capitol Hill for my hometown representative from rural Arkansas, and eventually headed to law school.
BY JOHN RYAN Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and its first chief judge as well. A mother to five children, she was a tremendous mentor. Her ability to skillfully navigate a deep commitment to her family, alongside an incredibly accomplished career, convinced me and my co-clerks that such a path might be open to us, too. I was also lucky to clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer. My year in his chambers – and the chance to see the Supreme Court at work – was enormously exciting and allowed me to learn about appellate writing and advocacy from the very best lawyers in the country. I also had the privilege of serving as Solicitor General of New York at a relatively early point in my career. Representing the state and its agencies in a wide range of challenging matters, taking on affirmative litigation, and learning management skills – all of it was challenging and very fulfilling. And I think every government lawyer will tell you that there is a special pride that comes with representing the public, every time you sign a brief or stand up in court. LD: Can you discuss different ways in which your practice evolved over your career? CH: Although much of my practice is focused on appellate work in the state and federal courts, through the years I have also worked extensively on cases at the trial level, from developing legal strategy to handling dispositive motions. The substance of my practice is quite varied, as it has been since my early days as a lawyer. As Solicitor General, I handled an incredibly diverse range of cases – constitutional questions, statutory interpretation, administrative law, and common law. As General Counsel to the Manhattan District Attorney, my practice primarily involved state criminal law. And in private practice, my work is again wide-ranging, from constitutional and statutory law to questions of commercial law and contract interpretation. This chapter of my career is especially engaging because I find myself constantly learning about new areas of law and the many different sectors in which our clients work.
LD: What experiences after that were important in your development as a lawyer?
LD: What made you decide to leave an established firm and join Selendy & Gay, which was just a year old at the time?
CH: The opportunity to clerk for two wonderful judges was equally formative. The first was Judge Patricia Wald, who was the first woman to serve on the U.S. Court of
CH: Selendy & Gay stood out as an exceptional place – started by a small group of lawyers practicing at the top of the profession, who wanted to take on difficult
PHOTO BY: JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
207
500
500 P UBL IC IN T ER E S T A ND P RO BONO WOR K A R E A N ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR PR AC TICE AT SELENDY & GAY, AND HAVE BEEN A FUNDA MENTAL COMPONENT OF MY OWN PR AC TICE. but important cases, build a meaningful sense of community, mentor young attorneys, and make real time for pro bono and public interest work. All of that really aligned with my own values. For me, practicing in a place that does excellent work, has a collegial atmosphere, and is centered around giving associates room to take on meaningful professional challenges is the ideal approach to lawyering. The chance to join the firm was really exciting, and being part of Selendy & Gay is even better! LD: What advice would you share with young attorneys looking to specialize in appellate law? CH: I think the most important goal should be finding a workplace where the caliber of lawyering is excellent and there are talented lawyers who will invest in you and your professional development. That was a huge draw in coming to Selendy & Gay – the chance to work closely with younger lawyers who are excited to work collaboratively and take on opportunities that might feel like a reach. For young lawyers who might be interested in doing appellate work, my view is that you’ll really benefit from using the first stretch of your career to put as many proverbial tools in your toolbox as you can. Take time to develop trial skills, even if you think you eventually might want to focus on legal issues and appeals, and work alongside people who are superb at what they do – whether that’s writing a brief, doing an investigation, or cross-examining a witness. You’ll have an array of options open down the road, and if you do focus on appellate work, you’ll be much better positioned to challenge or defend a trial record if you know from experience how it gets put together in the first place. LD: Have you faced many memorable adversaries in the courtroom? CH: I certainly have – and, for me, a tough adversary makes a case all the more rewarding. One such opponent was Kathleen Sullivan, whom I argued against
208
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
in the first case I handled at the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, she had just finished a term as dean of Stanford Law School, and I was less than ten years out of law school – a formidable match! She was fierce at the podium, but warm and friendly while we waited for arguments to begin. It was especially exciting for me, in my first case at the Supreme Court, to have the chance to face off against another woman – not something you see too often at that court. Fast forward to now. Over the past few months, I’ve argued several appeals regarding the constitutionality of a state statute against Barbara Underwood, who was my successor as New York Solicitor General. General Underwood is as dedicated a public servant as you’ll find, in a job that I know to be very rewarding. I think we both enjoyed the chance to meet in the courtroom over an important constitutional issue. LD: Can you speak to your pro bono and public interest work? CH: Public interest and pro bono work are an essential part of our practice at Selendy & Gay, and have been a fundamental component of my own practice. Just in the past few months, we have filed briefs in defense of the Affordable Care Act, and on whether the insanity defense is constitutionally required in criminal cases. We are representing a tenants’ organization in defending New York’s rent regulation statute against a sweeping constitutional challenge. And we represent the American Federation of Teachers in a fight for fair access to public service loan forgiveness provided by Congress. Cases like these are very rewarding. They allow us to bring high-quality lawyering to clients in need of assistance. They give our attorneys valuable experience trying cases and drafting appellate briefs, while working on matters that are important to them. And they allow the firm to engage in a meaningful way with matters of true public interest – something that has been important to me at every stage of my career.
500
Alexandra Korry
Mark Lanier
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK
LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON
Kalpana Kotagal
Daryl Lansdale
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON
Robery Kry
David Lash
MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES
Lea Haber Kuck
Lisa Laukitis
SKADDEN NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Walter Lack
Wendi Lazar
ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB LOS ANGELES
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
David Lam
Alejandro Gonzalez Lazzeri
WACHTELL NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Jeffrey Lamken
Mark Lebovitch
MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
Brent Landau
Travis Lenkner
HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA
KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO
Thomas Lane
Karen Hoffman Lent
WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
209
John C. Taylor and Dave Ring TAYLOR & RING (LOS ANGELES)
500
JOHN C. TAYLOR AND DAVE RING THIS IS A STORY ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN
when two of the best trial lawyers around – who happen to be the nicest people you’d ever want to know – decide that maybe they could join forces to build a firm that focuses on excellent work for injured people. No politics, no drama, just great lawyers doing their thing. “We started the firm on a handshake,” Dave Ring recalls, of he and John C. Taylor’s decision to leave their firms in 2002 to start Taylor & Ring. Taylor was already a name partner at Greene Broillet and a much-admired member of the L.A. plaintiff bar, where Ring was on the rise as one of the top young talents. “That set the tone for 17 years later.” The firm has earned a reputation as a leader in sexual assault, police misconduct and personal injury cases, making headlines with multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements including the wrongful death suit filed by the family of slain actress Lana Clarkson against 1960s music legend Phil Spector. In 2017, Ring reached a settlement with the Marlborough School, a private academy for middle- and highschool girls in Los Angeles, on behalf of a woman who became pregnant by a teacher when she was a student there. “It takes tremendous courage for people to come forward, especially with these most ultimate violations, then deal with law enforcement and then courts,” Taylor says. “The civil treatment in litigation of sexual abuse victims can be really brutal.” Lawdragon: That’s the truth of it. With all of the sexual misconduct cases that you’ve handled, knowing what the victims are going to face, what can you do to help them through? John Taylor: There’s always a tendency in these cases for the opposing side to imply that the victim somehow invited this or that it was consensual, that it’s somehow the victim’s fault. What the lawyers here do is protect the clients through the depositions where those types of questions are asked. The defendant has a right to the deposition, and the victims are going to have to talk about what happened to them, but we make sure it’s done in a way that is the least scarring and intrusive, and that it’s done with respect to the person, the victim. LD: When a potential client comes to you with a case like that, what do you look for in terms of understanding what their claim is and whether they’re forthright?
PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL
BY JAMES LANGFORD
Dave Ring: Very, very few people ever come in and are making it up. It’s a myth that people make up sexual assault claims. I think the statistics are that it’s less than 1%. They come in here, and 99.9% of the time, something bad has happened to them. Then the real question, and this is really the part of the business that does trouble me, is whether it’s a case where we can help. If it’s an uncle or a cousin or a neighbor across the street who’s responsible, there’s not a lot that we can do here for them because that’s in the criminal arena. I’ve seen civil litigation in that context actually hurt the victim more. Why? At the end of the day, you don’t get an apology in any case, all you get is a settlement, a monetary settlement. If they’re not getting a monetary settlement from these people, and they generally are not because those people are broke, bankrupt or flee the state, that’s devastating, too. We’ll sit down with those people and tell them, “Look, civil litigation is not going to get you to where you want to go.” That’s a tough conversation to have. LD: And the people who have the cases in which you can help, what should they know before they come in? DR: Here’s the biggest eye-opener for the clients who come in here. Most people say, “This happened to my kid at school, or the supervisor at work did that or whatever,” and think that the entity, the school, the church, is responsible automatically because that’s their employee and it happened on their watch. Everyone thinks that and when you say, “No, in fact the law says they’re not responsible and we have to meet this very high standard to show that they are,” they’re like, “Really?” These cases are incredibly difficult to win because the law is completely stacked in favor of the employer or the school or whatever the entity is. The law is totally in their favor. And these organizations that are sued in civil cases often say all the right things beforehand: “Oh, we’re so compassionate,” and all of that. Then you get them in a deposition, and they re-victimize the victims. They really do. That’s tough. LD: But you’ve dealt with helping victims of such abuse amazingly well. And clearly you’ve managed to strike a balance between those cases and the other types that you handle. DR: The thing I love is that half our practice is what it’s always been, serious personal injury cases of all types.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
211
500
500 That really keeps it vibrant and fresh and interesting. We have so many different types of cases. You pick up a file, it’s a totally different type of case than the file you picked up the day before. LD: You guys knew that would be the foundation of the firm? DR: We didn’t, but we discovered after a few years that it was working out. LD: Which brings us back to the beginning. How cool is it that two good guys end up doing really great? You don’t always see that. You both left where you were at, good firms, for righteous reasons and you’ve done extraordinary things. DR: We’ve all seen a lot of partnerships over the years, two-person partnerships that turn super awkward, super unfortunate, when one person brings in all the business and the other person gets lost in the shuffle. Which is always a possibility anytime you’re starting a partnership. I’ll tell you, it has been so down-the-line equal as far as successes and rainmaking and shared responsibilities and who wins which argument, it’s been truly amazing. We’re more like brothers, and we bicker here and there, but it’s all in good fun. I cannot remember ever having an argument with John, a real argument. LD: I believe it. DR: I’m sure we bicker, but we have never had any serious disagreement, ever. We’ve told the story a million times of how we started the firm on a handshake. A little of it may be luck, but it’s both of our personalities, too. We don’t have the same personality, but we do share common traits that really sync up well. It’s like Oscar and Felix from “The Odd Couple.” JT: I think we were lucky that our prior working experiences were really good. I liked all the guys that I’ve worked with before, and Dave really liked all the guys and women that he’d worked with before. But for whatever reason, the timing worked: We were ready to do something different. We talked about what we’d like to do, what each of us could contribute, and we had a deal. We shook hands, and that was the beginning. DR: It wasn’t easy, though. It wasn’t as if by the second day, everything was great and we were knocking it out of the park. Sure, we had some early successes, but we also had a couple of flat years. I remember, early on, trying to figure out what our niche was.
with us and we have good relationships with the attorneys who refer cases to us. We’ve always allowed them to have as much or as little involvement in the case as they want. Some people really want to be involved and other people want to do nothing more than to hand the case over and be done with it, and have you do it. The timing of the sex cases and Dave’s experience and trial results before we got together in that particular area, allowed a lot of lawyers to consider us for those cases. We’ve worked every conceivable angle on sexual abuse and molestation cases. At the same time, we’ve been able to keep the other cases, car accidents, product liability and insurance bad-faith cases. We’re game for anything that’s going to end up in a courtroom. LD: Can you think back to some of the early cases that helped define the firm? DR: I remember the first one that I brought over, a case against the MTA involving a woman who’d basically been sexually assaulted by the bus driver after she fell asleep on the bus. He drove to a secluded area, she was the only one on the bus at that point, and he sexually assaulted her. He ended up going to prison. That was literally one of the first cases we had. This is where I learned a lot about John, that John’s the greatest negotiator ever. That one, truly, was important because we got a lot of media coverage on it. It was a nice start to the firm and then paved the way for a lot of other clients. LD: Do you ever go to trial together? JT: Dave and I tried a motorcycle accident case together in the firm’s first several years. We’ve worked other cases together, but that was the only one in which we ended up doing the trial together, and we won an $18-million verdict. LD: Did you learn new things about each other? JT: That it’s hard to have two Type-A personalities sitting at counsel table. DR: We did great, really, dividing the responsibilities. It worked out fantastically and we should do it more often, but for some reason, he does his cases, and I do mine. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t do it again. LD: Except that you have so many cases to do. DR: And it’s a little unfair to the associates who work up the cases.
LD: The cases that would keep the lights on?
JT: Right.
JT: Fortunately, both of us brought enough cases with us, and then I think people were happy to do business
DR: They want to be part of the trial. So to say, “Hey, you’re out, I’m stepping in now,” we’ve never done that.
212
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
We’ve always let the other partners or the associates, whoever worked up the case, go to trial. JT: There has to be somebody involved with the case who is absolutely able to deal with all the minutiae in terms of whatever finally has to be pulled together. Both of us, we don’t necessarily want to do that as much anymore, as opposed to having somebody else do it who’s better at it, maybe. When we try the cases, it works out well to have two people doing the trial. I think it’s a very good model. But if you’re going to do it, it means you’re not just doing cleanup, you’re going to end up handling important witnesses, and sometimes maybe more witnesses than he and I would do. We want you to be involved. We don’t want the picture presented to the jury to be that somebody else is in charge. DR: Trials are very different now than they were 10 years ago. There are judges who want everything to happen very, very quickly – they want it to happen yesterday. You’re dealing with video depositions and technology and many, many, many depositions and documents. I don’t know how lawyers could go to trial by themselves anymore. At least on those types of cases. That’s why it’s always a team effort here on any trial. JT: It’s easier to keep a perspective on the case, too. That way, you’re not believing everything that you’re telling yourself – it isn’t as bad as you think it is, and maybe it’s not as good as you think it is. It’s another leveling set of eyes, hopefully. LD: What are some of the cases that you guys are most proud of? DR: The Marlborough School case is one of mine. It didn’t go to trial, but went right up to the weekend of trial. The victim who was our client is probably the most intelligent person I’ve ever met. She’s beyond. The case was high profile, and there were some very good defense lawyers on the other side. There were some very tough issues for the plaintiff to overcome, including a statute of limitations issue. It was a lot of work, and a lot of stress. There are cases where from Day One, I’m confident that we’re going to win, but with this one, I was always on the precipice. Finally, after three years and a lot of battles and a lot of publicity too, it turned out wonderfully. It’s one of those clients where if it had not turned out well, it could have really devastated her because for good or bad, this meant a lot to her to get closure. LD: You guys have also done some amazing work with police misconduct cases. Tell me more about those.
JT: Oddly, that’s another area where people think the cases must be really easy. I’ve often asked, “Why do you say that?” The answer usually involves cell phone videos and recording badge numbers. But our experience is that for every person on a jury who has had a negative experience themselves, there’s another person sitting right next to them who absolutely loves the police because law enforcement is the only thing keeping the crime wave from coming down their street. The standard that’s allowed for police officers, and the defending of police cases, is that they’ve got a split-second to make these life-and-death decisions. All of which is true, and all of which we have tremendous respect for. However, they’re trained to make those decisions, they’re put into those situations in training so that the decision that they make in real life doesn’t end up with somebody who is unarmed being shot. LD: Those cases always make headlines. And so do a lot of the cases your firm has handled. But you’ve been very strategic about which cases you discuss. DR: There are plenty of times that we’ve turned down media requests on cases because it wouldn’t be the right move for that particular victim or client. There are certain cases and clients where you just know that’s not going to benefit them. JT: The media has just been a huge factor in the growth of our practice. It’s one thing to advertise, but it’s another thing for the media to cover the results of your case. LD: True. DR: You know, you go into a venture like we did with this firm a little naïve, which is probably good. I said in the beginning, “Oh, everything’s going to be fine.” But there are so many pitfalls to being a plaintiff’s lawyer – you see firms with partnership disputes, losing a couple of large cases or running into cash-flow problems – that I’m really proud of the job that John and I have done sustaining the firm. Sure, we’ve hit some speed bumps along the way, we have, but not many big ones. JT: It’s really a testimony that nobody has left here. People don’t leave. Either we must be incredibly lax taskmasters, or they’re getting paid too much money. I think that the stability of the firm and creating a working environment where everybody feels that they’re part of whatever the effort is, I believe that has been rewarding for everybody.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
213
500
500 214
Sandra Leung
Jonathan Lowy
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBBB NEW YORK
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT HANDGUN VIOLENCE WASHINGTON, D.C.
Harlan Levy
Paola Lozano
BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Chris Lind
Kenneth Lumb
BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
Stuart Liner
Peter Lyons
DLA LOS ANGELES
FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK
David Lira
Eric Madden
GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES
REID COLLINS DALLAS
Thomas Loeser
Neal Manne
HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
George Lombardi
David Marriott
WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Jeremy D. London
Michael Marsh
SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
AKERMAN MIAMI
Kathy Love
Bradley Marten
MCGINN CARPENTER ALBUQUERQUE
MARTEN LAW SEATTLE
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Craig Martin
Mike McKool
JENNER & BLOCK CHICAGO
MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS
Katharine Martin
Christopher Meade
WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO
BLACKROCK NEW YORK
Jenny Martinez
Thomas Melsheimer
MUNCK WILSON DALLAS
WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS
Mark Martins
Mark Mendelsohn
OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS ALEXANDRIA, VA.
PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Tammy Marzigliano
Jane Michaels
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
HOLLAND & HART DENVER
Colette Matzzie
Edward Micheletti
PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
SKADDEN WILMINGTON, DEL.
Darin McAtee
Donald Migliori
CRAVATH NEW YORK
MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.
Joseph McCoy
Betsy Miller
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Randi McGinn
Ronald Miller
MCGINN CARPENTER ALBUQUERQUE
MILLER & ZOIS BALTIMORE
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
215
Alexandra “Lexie” White SUSMAN GODFREY (HOUSTON)
500
ALEXANDRA “LEXIE” WHITE YOU
DON’T
KNOW
LEXIE.
Hard to not think about stories discussing the dearth of women trial lawyers while watching her dismantle a court executive while bringing down the discriminatory Harris County cash bail system. Or watching her argue, as lead trial counsel for Chevron, for the removal of a slew of cases to federal court in the massive litigation over destruction of the Gulf ecosystem.
And yes, it’s unfair to hang the gender disparity of courtrooms throughout the U.S. on one lawyer. But you know what? We think she’s up to it. That’s what Steve Susman thought when in her second jury trial he audibled the opening statement to her. She joined Susman Godfrey after graduating top of her class at Louisiana State University Law School in Baton Rouge in 2004. She grew up there and vividly remembers sitting on the bench in her father’s courtroom. She learned to have a big heart and an endless thirst for justice as she watched folks come with their cases and trust in the court system. Fast forward a few decades – and insert the trial lawyering boot camp that is Susman Godfrey – and she is now leading cases with billions hanging in the balance, in courtrooms across the country, and for clients on both sides of the “v.” She loves everything about being a trial lawyer at Susman, the risk, the rewards – and the duel that we call crossexamination. It’s a faceoff based on wits, preparation and intuition that gives her an opportunity to expose flaws in her opponent’s case in real time, before a judge and often, a jury. A competitive swimmer through college, it’s perhaps not surprising that she relishes the competition – if not a little scary to her how very much she loves it. “I’m 100% confident that I was no good at it, at first,” White says, recalling an early foray into cross-examination during an evidentiary hearing with Neal Manne, the firm’s Houston-based managing partner. “I remember thinking it was so frightening. How do you do this effectively?” The more questioning White handled, however, the more addictive it became. Late last year, during trial in a $20-million breach of contract dispute in a D.C. courtroom, she took on a witness who hadn’t been deposed beforehand. Asking the open-ended questions she chose was risky, since she didn’t know what the answers might be, but there was also an upside: The witness wasn’t familiar with her style and didn’t know what to prepare for.
PHOTO BY: FELIX SANCHEZ
BY KATRINA DEWEY
“Particularly if you don’t have a good deposition transcript, where you can structure your cross around impeaching the witness, then it can be challenging,” White says. “But now, it’s a fun challenge to think about how you’re going to build and lay the trap and then lead the witness right into it.” Lawdragon: Tell me a little more about the recent breach of contract case you tried. Lexie White: We were against an $8-billion hedge fund, and our client was a small, family-owned company. The dispute went to the heart of our client’s business, which depended almost entirely on enforcing contracts like the one our opponents were ignoring. It was very much a bet-the-company case for our side. LD: Sounds like an intriguing case. And one you were passionate about. I do think cross-examination is what some of the greatest trial lawyers are driven by, because that’s where so much of the truth is exposed. There’s tremendous satisfaction in exposing a lie. LW: I can’t get enough of it. It’s the one thing that I can see even in my retirement, that I would almost pay to do. LD: Right? It’s like you’re putting yourself in this duel. Most people who are in a position to lie on the stand, they’ve rehearsed their lies, they’ve set them in stone, in a way, and so you’re the gladiator going in, looking to unravel their story. LW: Exactly. So much fun. Now that I’ve been doing it longer, I’m much more comfortable taking risks. I don’t think I would’ve been able to be as present and in-themoment when I was starting out. I always try to remind the young lawyers that I mentor - no one expects you to be a rock star right out of the gate. It’s a process. And it’s tremendously rewarding to see that progress. LD: What practice area did you get your start in? LW: Patent cases. Those were the cases that I cut my teeth on. I started volunteering for the cases where it appeared that I could get a lot of experience. I could take a lot of depositions, and I could argue at a lot of hearings, and if I mastered the record I would be in a position to assume a leadership role quickly. When I was a baby lawyer, those opportunities were on patent cases. And being in Houston, so many great trial lawyers seemed to be trying patent cases in the Texas federal courts, Marshall and Tyler especially. So that’s where I wanted to be, where I could see fantastic cross-examinations and the kind of lawyering that I wanted to emulate. Learn by
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
217
500
500 example. In every trial I’m in with great lawyers, I love to just take one thing, like, “I love the way you phrased that question. That’s going in my back pocket.” I had so many opportunities to do that when I was just starting out. I’m very grateful. LD: It’s like you learned to practice law from the Marshall, Texas, trial lawyer handbook. LW: The patent docket in Texas was on fire when I started. I remember getting the flyers from the Holiday Inn, in Marshall or Tyler, saying, “We can handle your war room and your ... “ I mean, it was fascinating to me that this whole cottage industry had formed around these cases. When you practiced there, you realized why. The judges were so smart. They had developed a real expertise in how to construe patents for jurors, in how to formulate local rules that moved the cases to trial quickly, that got everybody focused on the triable issues and out of needless discovery fights. It helped me to form good habits and to expect a lot of myself, and my opposing counsel, and the judges, because everyone was at the top of their game in that arena. LD: That really shows your competitive instincts. You knew that if you jumped in the deep end against good lawyers, then you would learn more quickly, and that led you to your patent clients. LW: I benefitted from some lucky breaks. The first client I had, after I handled his initial case as an associate, asked me to take over as first chair in a follow-on case. I felt like I had fallen backwards into my first lead counsel role. We were opposite several of the big-tech players, which was a career-high in terms of a learning experience, because our opponents could afford to really throw the book at us - and they were great trial lawyers. Eventually we were able to get those cases to trial and turn our client’s six-patent portfolio into more than $70 million in licensing revenues. It taught me a ton about how to evaluate risk, how to anticipate what the other side would argue, to weather the setbacks, and how to really gauge our odds of success. LD: And, like many a great Susman partner, you also seem to have a high tolerance for risk. LW: I don’t think I would have said that when I began practicing here. I think that risk tolerance, as opposed to what is maybe just “big talk,” comes with experience. In retrospect, I’m so grateful to have cut my teeth on contingency cases, because it did two things. It allowed me to gain experience beyond what I ever realistically would’ve gotten as a small cog in the large wheel of a huge defense-side docket. I didn’t need multiple levels of permission to take the depositions I took, or to argue the
218
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
hearings I argued, or to make the strategy calls I was making. The client knew that we were staffing the case in a way that made sense, because our interests were aligned. But contingency practice also shaped my habits. Can you imagine if losing a case meant you might not be able to cover your partner draw that year? It brings an energy to your practice that I for one am grateful for. And that type of practice demands efficiency - no task is worth taking the time to even think about unless it’s going to help you win. We don’t write a lot of esoteric research memos on my cases. Now, at least fifty percent of my docket is cases where I’m the defendant. And guess what, I can’t just turn those habits off - nor would I want to. It’s what makes the job fun. I think it’s only by allowing people to gain early experience in every aspect of trial practice, and by forcing them to form good habits aimed at producing good results, that firms can cultivate that risk tolerance, as you say, or really the confidence needed to run the dockets of high stakes cases we at Susman Godfrey are increasingly tapped to lead. LD: Tell me about some of the dockets you are currently handling? LW: I am defending Chevron in more than 40 related lawsuits filed by the state of Louisiana and a handful of coastal parishes and private landowners. The claim in each case is that the oil industry’s dredging and drilling practices going back decades have contributed to the state’s disappearing coastline, which the state’s estimates peg at costing upwards of $50 billion to restore. I’m also nearing trial as the plaintiff in a group of patent infringement cases pending in Delaware federal court where the dispute relates to core 3G and 4G wireless technologies. LD: What a diverse and interesting docket. Tell me more about the coastal cases? LW: We are in a jurisdictional fight right now, it’s currently pending at the U.S. Fifth Circuit. We need that court to tell us in which forum, state or federal, the cases should be heard. It’s a fabulous docket because my client has taken a leadership role in defending the cases and because all of the lawyers involved are top-notch. My appellate co-counsel with whom I split the removal arguments in the trial court is former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler from Sidley Austin, and my Susman Godfrey trial team includes Eric Mayer and Johnny Carter and Trey Peacock and Ryan Caughey to name a few - and we have terrific local counsel in Mike Phillips from Kean Miller. It’s the dream team of superstar trial lawyers, which is good because the cases are far from over in whichever forum they land. View the full Q&A www.lawdragon. com/2019/10/23/lawyer-limelight-alexandra-lexie-white.
500
Matthew Minner
Adam Murray
HARE WYNN LEXINGTON, KY
INNER CITY LAW CENTER LOS ANGELES
Theodore Mirvis
Scott Musoff
WACHTELL NEW YORK
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Steven Molo
Henry Nassau
MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK
DECHERT PHILADELPHIA
Michelle Moore
Daniel Neff
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Mike Moore
Sharon Nelles
MIKE MOORE LAW FIRM FLOWOOD, MISS.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK
Patricia Head Moskal
David Nevin
BRADLEY ARANT NASHVILLE
NEVIN BENJAMIN BOISE, IDAHO
Laurence Moy
Luke Nikas
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK
Marion Munley
Victoria Nugent
MUNLEY LAW PHILADELPHIA
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Francis Patrick Murphy
Sean O’Shea
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
CADWALADER NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
219
Jeroen van Kwawegen BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ (NEW YORK)
500
JEROEN VAN KWAWEGEN THE MOST ELITE LAW FIRMS STAY ON TOP
by always getting better, and part of that process over the past decade for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann has been strengthening the European side of its shareholder practice. That effort is led by Jeroen van Kwawegen, who also is co-head of the firm’s Department of Governance that focuses on the conduct of boards and senior executives. Van Kwawegen was a natural choice to guide the European practice: He was born in the Netherlands and practiced in Amsterdam before joining Latham & Watkins in New York. Though he had earlier wanted to work as a prosecutor, his move to Bernstein Litowitz 10 years ago has enabled him to litigate for the public good on behalf of wronged shareholders in the U.S. and abroad. Lawdragon: Let’s start by discussing your current work. Can you describe your role within the firm and the types of matters you tend to focus on? Jeroen van Kwawegen: As the co-head of our Department of Governance, I oversee all active litigation matters involving breaches of fiduciary duty by directors and executives, including in connection with mergers and acquisitions, shareholder voting rights and shareholder activism, and board oversight. I regularly represent shareholders in courts across the country with a track record of success. For example, last year, I led a trial that resulted in a $282 million judgment and with one of my other cases realized the largest class recovery in Delaware for the year. As the head of our European client practice, I also advise the firms’ institutional investor clients in Europe on all matters involving shareholder litigation, including securities litigation. LD: Within your substantive focus areas, can you identify any trends or issues that are taking up more of your time these days? JVK: Within the governance area, there has been a noticeable retreat of the courts’ scrutiny of executive and board conduct in connection with third-party transactions. This is true for fiduciary conduct in third-party mergers and in post-transaction valuation matters like appraisals. As a result, corporate fiduciaries are now subject to less judicial scrutiny and accountability, and corporate advisors have fewer tools to act as gatekeepers and rein in executives who contemplate abusing their fiduciary positions for personal gain. This judicial retreat is facilitating
PHOTO BY: PHOTO BY JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA
BY JOHN RYAN a transfer of wealth from shareholders to disloyal executives and directors. Despite the judicial headwinds, I love my practice, including going to court and interacting with judges, clients – including funds, banks, asset managers, merger arbs, hedge funds, etc. – and opposing counsel on a variety of securities class actions and governance cases. The law is challenging, but our cases typically involve egregious disloyalty and corporate misconduct, and I believe deeply in the importance of this work. So we will continue to advocate for a rebalancing of the law. Indeed, we have opened an office in Wilmington, Delaware, and I am proud to say that one of the leading corporate litigators in Delaware, Greg Varallo, has joined the firm to head that office and is now one of my partners. It is critical that Delaware’s expert judiciary continues to hear more from shareholder lawyers because the pendulum of Delaware law has swung too far from the protection of basic shareholder rights, including with respect to the extent to which shareholder approval of a merger immunizes disloyal conduct, the judicial invention of a so-called “passive market check,” and the elimination of most shareholder appraisal rights without a legislative mandate. Not engaging with courts on these critical issues would be a disservice to our institutional shareholder clients and the corporations they own. LD: How about the European angle – please discuss the firm’s evolution in terms of representing those types of institutional clients. How much of a focus is this? JVK: Our firm operates on non-negotiable core values, including professional excellence, high ethical standards, and maintaining our and our clients’ reputations with courts, adversaries, and peers. Because of these values, our firm benefited from the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995, which encouraged institutional investors to retain professional counsel to lead securities class actions. BLB&G quickly became one of the few go-to firms for U.S. institutional investors. After I joined BLB&G and became a litigation partner, the firm asked me to lead our efforts to expand our advice to European institutions while maintaining my case load. Although we were playing catch-up to some early movers, we had a strong foundation and repu-
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
221
500
500 tation, and we made a long-term commitment to our European clients. We have been very successful. In my experience, all institutional investors understand and value the importance of such a relationship. It was also helpful that I was born and raised in the Netherlands and practiced as a commercial litigator in Amsterdam before obtaining a J.D. at Columbia Law School and then building my career as a U.S. litigator in New York. Meanwhile, the effects of the financial crisis, corporate scandals at Volkswagen and the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the rising importance of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) principles as part of shareholder mission statements, encouraged European institutional investors to become more active in overseeing litigation. LD: What sparked your interest in becoming a lawyer? Once you became interested, what did you expect to be doing with your career? JVK: I started working in the tulip fields at age 14 for $1 an hour and was the first person in my family to go to college and law school. I went to law school to become a criminal prosecutor. At the time, I was an instructor with the Dutch military police as part of my mandatory military service and I was committed to making the world a little safer and more just. While I was in law school, I had an opportunity to participate in an exchange program with Columbia Law School. This experience broadened my horizons, introduced me to the Socratic method and the active encouragement of critical thinking in American law schools, and allowed me to begin to consider a different, more adventurous life outside the Netherlands. As a prosecutor, I would be bound to the Netherlands. To keep my options open for a different life, I began my training at a respected law firm in Amsterdam. I still have fond memories of my professional mentor, Diederik de Groot, who routinely had me over for dinner with his family while teaching me essential skills and preparing me for my first arguments. I later had a similar experience with the Hon. Huub Willems – the former Chairman of the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals who oversaw proceedings concerning the takeover of ABN AMRO by Barclays, RBS, Santander and Fortis. He, too, became a close friend and trusted mentor. LD: After you were already practicing in Amsterdam, why did you want to come to America to get your J.D.? What was your career plan at that point? JVK: My desire to make the world a little safer and more just had not lessened when I returned to New
222
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
York, so I inquired with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Southern District of New York as to whether Dutch citizens could join. The necessary security clearance made this impossible. Truth be told, student loans would have made this impossible, too. During law school, I could not work on my student visa and only had enough money for two meals a day. After law school, I joined Latham & Watkins and quickly paid off my loans. I was fortunate to find Blair Connelly and Peter Rosen – two litigation partners at L&W who took an interest in me and taught me the basics of being a U.S. litigator. In one of the matters that had the most impact on me, we represented the Westfield Group (the lessee of the shopping mall at the World Trade Center) against numerous insurance carriers who improperly denied coverage and held up payments under the policies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In these matters, we acted on behalf of a wronged plaintiff against corporate actors who acted in bad faith, laying the foundation for my move to BLB&G. LD: What are some unique characteristics about BLB&G that you appreciate and have helped you to be successful? What do you feel is critical to the firm’s continued success? JVK: The combination of the firm’s core values, our nimble and entrepreneurial culture, and the respect we have for everyone in the organization is unique among law firms and has allowed me to be successful. Our firm’s reputation and the commitment of many people at BLB&G who supported me over the years have helped me seize new opportunities while developing my skills and practice, including by advocating for me to do important arguments and to take important depositions, and to be entrepreneurial in developing the European client practice. I am very proud to be a part of our firm and culture. I am also proud that courts, peers, adversaries, and industry observers have recognized my work, and that I am the only European shareholder litigator on Lawdragon’s prestigious list of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America.” But I would not have received this recognition without the support of all the professionals throughout my firm who care first and foremost about our clients and the mission. I stand on the shoulders of many mentors and see it as my role at BLB&G to be a mentor and carry many future mentors on mine. I believe commitment to our people and their growth and success is critical to our culture and continued collective success.
500
Regina Olshan
Kathy Patrick
SKADDEN NEW YORK
GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON
Kevin J. Orsini
Latosha Lewis Payne
CRAVATH NEW YORK
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Wayne Outten
Sandra Peake
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Grant Palmer
Gerry Pecht
BLANK ROME PHILADELPHIA
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON
Robin Panovka
Jason Peltz
WACHTELL NEW YORK
BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO
Jackie Park
Luis Penalver
DLA LOS ANGELES
CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK
Michael Park
Daniel Petrocelli
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY NEW YORK
O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES
Stephanie Parker
Joseph Petrosinelli
JONES DAY ATLANTA
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Michael Paskin
Stacy Phillips
CRAVATH NEW YORK
BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
223
500
500 Lary Stromfeld CADWALADER (NEW YORK)
224
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
LARY STROMFELD LARY STROMFELD HAS ALWAYS BEEN
drawn to big challenges, whether it’s setting standards for the global financial markets or feeding 1.4 million hungry New Yorkers. Shortly after he earned a social science degree from Brandeis University, the Blizzard of ‘78 immobilized the northeastern United States, including the Boston suburb where Stromfeld was employed as a social worker helping senior citizens with housing, healthcare and transportation. The city was shut down for a week; people were stuck in their homes, some without food, heat, or medication. Stromfeld lived near a public works employee so was able to get a ride to Town Hall each day. For 16 hours a day he answered phone calls to help people through the crisis. “It was exhausting and exhilarating,” he says. “I was instantly given discretion and authority to work with local businesses and the civil guard to improvise solutions.” “Afterward, I discovered that, as much as I enjoyed my job and really wanted to help each client, they were all struggling with the same issues,” explains Stromfeld, now a partner at Cadwalader and a member of its management committee. “I found myself reading Social Security and Medicaid regulations, and realized that it was law and policy that was affecting their lives. I wanted to find a bigger solution. That’s when I decided to go to law school, thinking, frankly, that I would go into public service law.” Lawdragon: That’s fascinating. So you didn’t grow up wanting to become a lawyer? Lary Stromfeld: I didn’t. I’m the first lawyer in my family. My father was an accountant and became the CFO at a manufacturing firm in the New York suburbs. It eventually went public, but he wasn’t ready to retire, so he bought an office supplies business in downtown Manhattan, “pre-Staples.” It was a good small business, with a retail side. He was a fantastic numbers guy, but dealing with customers was not his strong suit. So my mother joined the business, and that made a big difference. Her family had owned a candy store that was the neighborhood hang-out, complete with a sandwich counter that served ice cream sodas. Her mother, my grandmother, was the brains and personality that kept everybody coming back to the candy store, so customer relations was in my mother’s genes, so to speak. As for me, I went to Penn Law at the end of the ‘70s and landed a summer job on Wall Street in the legal
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY KATRINA DEWEY department of Drexel Burnham Lambert. It was during the financial industry’s go-go years, and I was excited by it all. I discovered that, notwithstanding my liberal arts degree and my interest in public policy, I had a real interest in and acumen for finance, which I inherited from my father. That opened up my eyes. LD: Did your time at Drexel inspire you to return to Wall Street? LS: It did. When I graduated law school, I got a job at Mudge Rose in New York, which was known nationally for municipal bond work. For me, financing for public projects – schools, hospitals, housing, infrastructure – was the best of both worlds. I was doing the finance work that I was good at, and I was doing it for public projects. For several years, I took every opportunity to work for different partners on different types of financings, and I loved everything about it. One late night at a financial printer a group of lawyers I knew and respected told me that they were about to start up the New York office of Orrick Herrington – which at that time only had offices on the West Coast. I joined them as the ninth lawyer in New York. Because it was a start-up, I began to focus on developing business. Unfortunately, the public finance market was hit hard by the 1984 tax law changes and started to contract. As much as I loved what I was doing, I realized that my career would be limited unless I branched out. LD: It can be challenging to move from having a realization like that to acting on it. What happened next? LS: I contacted a headhunter friend with whom I’d shared a summer beach rental on Fire Island, in a group house, a couple of years earlier. I told her that I needed to make a move away from traditional public finance work, and that I was interested in complex financings. She suggested that I look into structured finance and derivatives, and said the best firm for that work was Cadwalader. I got an interview and immediately knew it was the right fit for me. Once I started at Cadwalader, I threw myself into every opportunity to learn as much as I could and retooled myself to be a structured finance and derivatives lawyer. I recently celebrated my 30th year here. LD: Congratulations. LS: So that was my path from sociology major to derivatives lawyer.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
225
500
500 LD: It’s fascinating, because so often you find that there is some river that flows through a whole career. There’s generally something that ties it together. Tell me more about how your expertise developed. LS: I went to Cadwalader because it represented most of the major global financial institutions in their derivatives business. Soon after I arrived, state and local governments became interested in doing derivatives transactions in connection with the financing of public projects. This was very fortunate for me because I had spent the first part of my career doing those financings and the next few years doing derivatives. I was literally one of the only people in the country at that time with expertise in both. As a result, I became the lawyer who helped our bank clients understand and start that business, which grew quickly. As I developed the relationships with those clients, they began calling me for other new businesses or financing structures. And so I was able to expand the practice, which is what enabled me to become a partner here at Cadwalader in January 1994. I had a very vibrant practice from the start. LD: As you expanded your practice, what are some of the deals or other matters you’ve worked on that were hallmarks? LS: The first one that comes to mind is the Detroit bankruptcy, because at the time it was the biggest and one of the first municipal bankruptcies in the United States. I had helped one of our large bank clients do the initial financing with Detroit, to finance its public pension funds. But a few years later the city started to experience financial difficulty, so we restructured the transaction to meet the city’s cashflow needs. In exchange, we took a security interest in the tax receipts the city collects from its casinos – a very stable collateral package. Unfortunately, over the following years, the city’s financial condition continued to deteriorate. When the city was preparing to file for bankruptcy, the city officials realized that they would not be able to have a successful bankruptcy plan unless they renegotiated access to the collateral they had given us in the prior restructuring. Literally on the eve of the bankruptcy filing, the city’s lawyers came to our office to request access to that collateral. We used that bargaining position to renegotiate a deal that put us front and center in the Detroit bankruptcy. LD: So that propelled your work in municipal bankruptcies? LS: It did. My team at Cadwalader was already known for our expertise in complex municipal financings, and
226
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
that put us on the map for handling complex municipal bankruptcies. During the course of the Detroit matter, I was at a charity dinner where I was approached by several people I know in the municipal market about issues they were seeing in Puerto Rico. The island wasn’t really on anyone else’s radar at the time. Detroit was still the headline in the municipal finance market. I came back from that charity dinner and met with several of my bankruptcy colleagues and said, “We need to get as deep as we can into Puerto Rico’s finances and a potential bankruptcy.” So we put together an analysis of what might happen in Puerto Rico. Then we identified from public filings Puerto Rico’s biggest creditor, Assured Guaranty Municipal, a municipal bond insurer that, basically, provides coverage for bonds at risk of default. Assured had about $5 billion of exposure on the island. So I said, “Let’s go talk to them.” We made a great presentation to them and, clearly, we had thought about all this in a lot more detail and well in advance of anyone else. They hired us, and we continue to represent Assured as the largest creditor in the largest municipal bankruptcy in history, which means it also comes with many complicated political and social issues. LD: The Puerto Rico example is such a good one of how the skills you’ve acquired during your career, and the initiative you take with prospective clients, has helped generate business. LS: It’s not just me. I have to recognize and give credit to my partners here at Cadwalader, especially Ivan Loncar, because these engagements are not something one person does alone. That’s what I like most about these kinds of engagements, whether it’s Detroit or Puerto Rico or the work we are currently doing to prepare for the end of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). This kind of complex work involves many, many disciplines, and Cadwalader just has so many talented lawyers, particularly in the financial markets. Take our representation of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, for example. When the Dodd-Frank Act was passed in July 2010, everyone knew it would bring sweeping new regulation to the derivatives markets and that it would take months for the new rules to be released. In the meantime, the markets were in a kind of limbo, waiting for the regulatory shoe to drop. Fortuitously, in a very strange way, that July I slipped and fell in my backyard while playing volleyball with my high school daughter and her friends, tearing my calf muscle in the process. I was laid up for weeks, and I remember thinking, “OK, everybody knows these regs
500
are coming, but nobody quite knows what they will look like. We can’t just sit around and wait. There’s got to be something we could be doing now.” So, I spent weeks on the phone with the regulatory attorneys at Cadwalader trying to anticipate how the regulators would approach writing rules based upon the same legislation we were all looking at. We then developed a range of alternative scenarios and strategies for dealing with them. Out of that, we ended up representing ISDA in the development of documentation and policies to address the regulations coming out of Dodd-Frank, and then, ultimately, to address policies around the world as other jurisdictions developed their own rules. We essentially established the framework for addressing the global regulation of derivatives. LD: That’s really incredible. You fell down playing volleyball and you end up advising financial institutions around the world. LS: Yes, thank you, I guess. There was another project that grew out of that, and actually I’m pretty proud of it as well. You know, the derivatives market is a global market of trillions of dollars, but it’s not an exchange. Each individual transaction is based on a bilateral contract published by ISDA. So once we developed the documentation that was needed to address the regulatory changes, all of those bilateral contracts – literally hundreds of thousands – needed to be amended. The scale of that logistical challenge was daunting.
Because of the scale of the market, we were introduced to a global fintech company. We explained the concept and then helped them design an online system that could accommodate the numerous variations of the documentation that we had prepared, based upon each market participant’s particular regulatory needs and profile. It was the first time such a system had been used in the global derivatives market. It forced us to think about documentation in a different way, to draft the language with a view toward how it could be translated into the logic of binary computer coding. That platform eventually had over 200,000 subscribers. LD: And then how did your involvement in LIBOR come about? LS: Concerns about LIBOR had been surfacing for many years, and many banks had settled litigation over alleged manipulation of LIBOR (which is an international benchmark for interest rates). In the summer of 2017, the regulator in London who oversees LIBOR announced that, as of the end of 2021, market participants would have to treat LIBOR as no longer being available. That hit me as a huge challenge.
ISDA had previously published template amendments online to address other changes to their form documents. It was a really efficient way of amending documents on a large-scale basis when you had a single amendment for a single issue or provision that needed to be adopted by thousands of market participants.
The notion of LIBOR just ceasing to exist appealed to my intellectual curiosity and became a bit of an obsession for me. I kept thinking about it and talking about it, but with no particular goal or purpose in mind. I even went to the annual conference for the securitization industry – about 8,000 people – just to walk around for two days asking people what they planned to do. I was like a roving reporter with a single question. I learned a lot about the multiple perspectives and impacts that the change would have on various stakeholders in the market. I also got a few strange looks.
But our amendments were 100 times more complicated than that, because there were many, many different provisions that needed to be amended and there was a myriad of regulations that we were trying to address. And so we needed to develop multiple forms and options to achieve regulatory compliance and design them in a way that could be efficiently incorporated into hundreds of thousands of contracts.
It was very early in the process at the Federal Reserve, which had convened a committee – the Alternative Reference Rates Committee – to find a replacement index. The ARRC has about 40 members, roughly 30 market participants of all sizes and types, including banks, money managers, trade associations, etc., and about 10 U.S. market regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC.
So, this was another “aha” moment for me. I was literally on my way to a meeting at ISDA’s office, walking down Madison Avenue and thinking about what it means to try to amend all these contracts. And I just came up with an idea based on a very simple notion: although we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of contracts, really, in the end, we can use the simple contract law principle of “offer and acceptance.”
Once the ARRC identified a new index to replace LIBOR and was ready to recommend that market participants address the replacement in their contracts, it needed to hire a law firm. I had been talking to so many people by that time – and was also known for my work for ISDA – that I was recommended to the ARRC by the in-house attorneys of the ARRC members. I am proud that they selected Cadwalader to draft the documentation for
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
227
500
500 transitioning from LIBOR to the new index, a $200 trillion global market. Today, almost two years since we began working with the ARRC and assisting our clients on their LIBOR transition, we are viewed as the go-to firm for the big banks and, increasingly, regional banks and other financial institutions. The LIBOR transition is an enormous undertaking for any financial institution. LD: That’s great. All the while, you have been able to balance your complex practice with an ongoing commitment to public interest work, specifically Justice Served. LS: On that one, again, I’m fortunate to have benefited from my colleagues at Cadwalader. Food Bank For New York City is the largest emergency food program in the city, organized 36 years ago as a not-for-profit by my Cadwalader partner, Jack Fritts, who I also consider to be a good friend, a really inspiring man. Over many years, I would listen to Jack talk about the critical work being done by food banks. It all sounded important and necessary, and I regularly wrote donation checks and provided support but was not directly involved in Food Bank’s work. That all changed when I volunteered to do an event at the Food Bank. Always being client-minded, I mentioned this to a good client and friend – Maria Douvas of Morgan Stanley. She said “Oh, great. Next month is our annual ‘give-back’ month. We’re trying to decide what to do.” And I said, “Well, I have an idea.” So, I chartered a bus to pick up volunteers from Cadwalader and from Morgan Stanley’s legal department, and together we headed up to the Food Bank’s Bronx warehouse for the day. Now, as a lawyer, I spend most of my days in a 12-by-12 foot office. Then I walked into this 90,000 square-foot warehouse with shelves stacked floor to ceiling with food and with tractor-trailers lined up at the loading bays. That moment changed my life. The thought that went through my mind was not “How big this place is” but, “How big the need must be that this is what is needed to feed hungry people in New York City!” Food Bank leaders really drove home the point, explaining that one in five New Yorkers faces hunger and what I was looking at would only feed them for a few days. I remember turning to one of the lawyers standing next to me and saying, “I have to do something. I can’t just walk away and go back to my regular life tomorrow. I have to act on this.” I also knew from my experience as a social worker in Boston that I needed to do something with a bigger impact. I just didn’t know what it would be. LD: You’ve always looked for these bigger solutions.
228
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LS: I think you’re right. With that one, I kept thinking “What can I do? I don’t know anything about hunger. I don’t know anything about food banks. I don’t know anything about the food industry. I don’t even know people in the food industry.” But in talking to people and tossing around different ideas, I eventually came up with the wholly unoriginal idea of using my network to start a campaign within the New York City legal community to help fight hunger. The folks at Food Bank are the ones who coined the name “Justice Served,” which I think is terrific. That first year, the campaign had Cadwalader and five other law firms and law departments as charter members. This past year, in just our fourth year, we had 24 law firms and law departments. LD: Congratulations. That’s magnificent. Are you proud of it? LS: Thank you. I am very proud of it. This campaign has really made a difference. We have raised awareness, activated thousands of volunteer hours, and raised enough funds to provide over two million meals in our first four years, and it just gets bigger and more impactful every year. I have to give credit to the people at Food Bank and Cadwalader’s pro bono manager, Annie Mohan, for making it a success. When I am not doing my “day job,” I’m always thinking about strategies to invigorate the campaign and bring in new members and challenge everyone to do more. I’m also proud that my family has embraced the fight against hunger. One daughter ran the food recovery network at her college, my wife wrote a comprehensive guide on how to run a soup kitchen, and we have an annual family event for our local food pantry. LD: I also remember so well you talking about how much the in-house attorneys at different financial institutions wanted to get involved, which is very cool. LS: What the Justice Served campaign highlighted for me is that a really valuable and under-appreciated way to develop relationships with clients is through shared values. When I approach clients that I work with every day on all kinds of financings and legal issues and say, “Hey, let’s do something to fight hunger in New York City,” I don’t feel like I’m asking them for a favor; rather, I’m offering them an opportunity to share something that is incredibly meaningful. And they appreciate that. For me, that’s just a perfect day: working side-by-side with clients who have shared values to tackle complex legal matters and make a difference in our community.
500
Jonathan Polkes
Shawn Raymond
WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
Eric Posner
Noelle Reed
MOLOLAMKEN CHICAGO
SKADDEN HOUSTON
Joseph A. Power
William T. Reid IV
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
REID COLLINS AUSTIN
Thomas Power
Julie Goldsmith Reiser
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Steven Quattlebaum
Lorin Reisner
QUATTLEBAUM GROOMS LITTLE ROCK, ARK.
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
Patrick Quinn
Alison Ressler
CADWALADER NEW YORK
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES
Vered Rabia
Ana Reyes
SKADDEN NEW YORK
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Shawn Rabin
Michael T. Reynolds
SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Brian Ratner
Ekwan Rhow
HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.
BIRD MARELLA LOS ANGELES
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
229
Ellen Holloman CADWALADER (NEW YORK)
500
ELLEN HOLLOMAN ELLEN HOLLOMAN KNEW FROM A
very young age that she would be a doctor or a lawyer. Expectations were high in her household, including from her mother, a nurse, and her father, a doctor who was the first black head of New York’s Health & Hospitals Corporation, and for whom the street in front of New York’s legendary Harlem Hospital is named. She has more than exceeded any hopes they had, crafting a career as a top financial litigation partner at Cadwalader while also taking on some of the most difficult public interest cases, including providing counsel to death-row inmates. “In the case of an inmate with a capital sentence, the chances you have aren’t necessarily always that good, so you go in knowing that you may lose … and that losing is a very difficult outcome to cope with,” says Holloman, who received the New York City Bar Association’s prestigious Thurgood Marshall award for her post-conviction work with death-row inmates in Florida, Georgia and Texas. The capital cases are “some of the most important work that I’ve ever done and probably ever will do,” Holloman says. “Knowing that the Thurgood Marshall has been given to lawyers whom I admire tremendously, the thought that I received it as well makes me feel very, very honored.” Lawdragon: I can’t even imagine balancing death-row appeals, representing people who must feel so hopeless sometimes, with your private litigation caseload. Ellen Holloman: What you’re saying is very true, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. In fact, it means you have to do it. You have to. It’s very important work. Before my career is over, I will absolutely take on another one of those cases. LD: Were you always so passionate about pro bono work, or was that something that developed over the course of your career? EH: My parents placed a very high priority on public service. My father was the first black president of Health & Hospitals Corporation, which operates the public hospitals in New York City. He devoted his life to making healthcare services available to the poor, and I grew up in that tradition with him. One of our family values is that we have an obligation to help those who are in need. In some ways, it’s not something I even think much about. I was just raised to believe that it was absolutely
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY KATRINA DEWEY necessary; if you can do it, if you are lucky enough to be in a position to do it, then you must do it. One of the reasons that I have been so happy at Cadwalader is that our values as a firm very much align with my personal values. It is so important to work with people who share your values. Difficult, challenging work is just that much easier when you do. And, the effort you need to make to be helpful isn’t always huge. With the individuals I’ve worked with, sometimes even something as simple as writing a letter can make a huge difference. LD: Tell me more about that. It’s amazing how much an expression of interest from the right person or organization can accomplish sometimes. EH: Exactly. I’m very fortunate to sit on the board of the New York Lawyers for Public Interest on behalf of Cadwalader. The very first case that I ran by myself, then as a second-year associate at Sullivan & Cromwell, with only partner oversight, was a case that came from that organization. An elderly client who was living in public housing had not had hot water in her kitchen for almost 20 years. Twenty years! To wash dishes, she had to fill up a bucket in the bathroom and bring it to the kitchen. My client was getting older, she was a grandmother and she had responsibilities, helping to take care of a newborn grandchild, and she couldn’t take the situation anymore. She had resigned herself after many phone calls and letters that nothing would ever change, but the arrival of her grandchild motivated her to seek legal help one more time. So I wrote a letter on our law firm letterhead saying that I was going to be representing her, and the next month her hot water was permanently fixed. I didn’t even have to file a complaint. LD: After 20 years. EH: It was a very humbling moment for me to be able to do something to help this lovely woman and her family. Another extremely important and humbling pro bono case I worked on was with a Vietnam veteran who had been on the streets for many years. He’d suffered through post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism, drug addiction and homelessness, and he was eventually able to get himself clean and into permanent housing, and reconnect with his family, including a daughter and grandchild. He couldn’t find a job, however, because he had a decades-old felony conviction for supposedly “trespassing” in an abandoned building in Connecticut during the winter. He also had a physical limitation that presented an additional challenge: he had been
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
231
500
500 attacked while he was homeless and had limited use of his legs.
LD: That’s fantastic. So you’re pairing diversity and inclusion with pro bono efforts.
Still, he found a job that was going to be suitable – something that he could do to earn money to help support his family – but he couldn’t get that job because of this conviction. So we were able to get his conviction expunged, and it was a wonderful moment because it made a difference, not just for him and his pride in being able to support himself, but also for his entire family, as he could now contribute.
EH: Exactly. And it makes coming to work exciting; when the alarm goes off in the morning, I’m happy. I enjoy serving our clients, I enjoy working with my partners and the excellent associates here, and I really take pride in the social good that we’re able to achieve through our Center for Diversity and Inclusion. It rings all my bells.
Helping people who are coming home from incarceration or who have prison records get back to work, to me, is job one. I’m also involved with the Center for Employment Opportunities, and that’s our mission: to make sure that people who are coming home from incarceration can get employment. It’s a complete privilege to be able to serve as a trustee and to work with an organization that is so effective in getting people back to work. Most people who are coming out of prison have families. So, to be able to support their families financially, it’s a huge social benefit and I’m so proud of the people at the Center who do that work every day, as their regular job. They have my unending admiration. LD: That attitude fits in so well at Cadwalader, which I know values pro bono work and community involvement. EH: There are a lot of firms that talk about things like pro bono and diversity, but if you don’t have genuine support for these missions from the highest levels of management, it does not work. That’s what makes this firm stand out. What our Center for Diversity and Inclusion is doing is cutting-edge. It’s incredibly unique, it’s incredibly ambitious, and I am proud of it beyond words. LD: Tell me a little more about that. EH: For one thing, it includes affinity groups that partner with pro bono organizations to an absolutely unique effect. I’m the partner sponsor of Cadwalader’s Black and Latino Association, along with my fellow partner Cheryl Barnes, and CBLA manages an immigration asylum clinic. It was founded by an amazing associate, Osvaldo Garcia, who came to this country as a very young boy seeking asylum with his family. He has made it his cause to help other people have the same wonderful American journey. The clinic prepares asylum applications, visa applications, and we work closely with clients to do that. A lot of inhouse attorneys have the desire, but just don’t have the opportunity, unfortunately, in their day-to-day work to take on a pro bono case, so our clinic – in partnership with Goldman Sachs - provides them with that opportunity. It’s been received so enthusiastically. People are very, very appreciative.
232
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
What’s special about the way that we work on diversity and inclusion at Cadwalader is that we put our values into action. The affinity groups themselves are very active. We have a nationally renowned Civil Rights speaker series; we recently had the Senior Counsel from Human Rights Watch come in to talk about the situation at the southern border and how attorneys can be helpful in response. Our commitment to diversity and inclusion, our support of pro bono work, that’s not just words on a website, it’s not something that we say because we think that we have to check a box. The commitment is genuine, and it comes from the highest levels of our management. If you don’t have that kind of buy-in, you’re not going to be successful with diversity and inclusion. It is much more than just a warm and fuzzy feeling; it is the right thing to do, it’s a values-driven proposition and it certainly reflects the values of the clients we are privileged to serve. The commitment here is a substantive one, and the approach is a substantive one. It goes far beyond headcount. The way that some people misguidedly approach diversity is that they have a little policy or a statement they pay lip service to, and use in marketing materials, and where they go wrong is that their stated values do not reflect the norms, the actual lived experiences, within the organization because they are not genuinely held beliefs, so they have not put in the work to make it real in practice. That’s not diversity. That’s tokenism, and it’s offensive. I have actively avoided situations that were cloaked as diversity initiatives but where, in fact, my opinions and my perspectives weren’t welcome at all. All that was wanted was the fact that I’m a diverse woman. No thanks. LD: The way you’re combining your diversity efforts and pro bono work with your practice, where you’ve handled some very high-profile cases, is impressive. I know you’ve handled a tremendous amount of securities litigation; tell me more about what your practice looks like. EH: I’ve spent my career focusing on complex commercial litigation. I’ve handled matters in state and federal courts, including bankruptcy court, dealing with complex contractual disputes, acquisition and transactional disagreements, and breach of fiduciary duty and fraud
500
claims, for individuals, institutions and estates. I also have deep experience in securities matters, including class actions, for U.S. and foreign clients, and as a part of that, I’m also always involved in internal or regulatory investigations: whether the investigations grow out of civil litigation or expand into litigation, they always seem to accompany it.
EH: I had wonderful examples in my family. There are several attorneys in my family, both men and women, and I watched them from as long ago as I can remember being very effective in a variety of ways that they practiced law and lived their lives. I had very good examples growing up of people living distinguished, powerful lives with strength and grace.
So I often work with my colleagues in our white-collar and regulatory practices. And that’s great because I learn every day, I do new things every day, I get to strategize every day and I get to closely collaborate with my partners in other practice groups, another feature of practicing law here that gives our work an edge.
LD: A family of lawyers?
Proceeding with civil litigation and handling a government or regulatory element at the same time requires you to be very forward-thinking. You can’t think, “OK, what is this going to look like a week from now?” You’re thinking two years out, “How will this play out in court?” or “How will this play out if this has to be disclosed to the government, or when we disclose this to the government?” I enjoy the strategy part of what I do very much. A few years ago, I worked on a matter in which, primarily with the help of a fantastic associate I worked with at the time, we uncovered a serious financial fraud committed by a publicly-held company. It all came down to a few emails and other documents, out of the millions of pages and files we handled in discovery, as well as the testimony at trial. Still, it was a complex chain of events and set of facts, and understanding the big picture and identifying the correct governing law required careful and sustained attention to detail. In fact, not even the attorneys handling the transaction at issue at the outset realized that they had been completely duped, so piecing together the chronology and supporting it with evidence was a lengthy, painstaking process. It takes patience and perseverance to define and manage the strategy, and hard work to build a case and craft a narrative. You have to sweat the small stuff and put in the time and do the work – that’s when great things happen. It was incredibly gratifying to see the judge adopt my presentation of the facts and the supporting legal reasoning. Big kudos to those fantastic associates, special counsel and legal assistants I worked with on that matter – these things are always a team effort, and I appreciate and thank them for stepping up on a tough case. It was a complete success for the client and I was so proud of the outcome and the effort to get there. LD: So how did you get into this practice? What led you to think about becoming a lawyer?
EH: Yes. The joke is, you can be a doctor or a lawyer. That’s actually true; it’s not just a joke. In addition to my parents, a nurse and a doctor, most of my brothers and sisters are doctors and lawyers. The same with cousins. That’s really what led me to law, to answer your question. It’s almost like a family tradition. Children in my family were treated almost equally to the adults, who never really talked down to us. With respect to their careers, the adults in my life spoke very frankly with me about what they did and why they liked it. Those conversations really stuck with me. LD: As you went through law school, did you know you wanted to be a litigator, or was that something that evolved after you graduated and started practicing? EH: I always knew that I wanted to be a litigator. When I was a summer associate, I never took a corporate assignment. It was always litigation. When I was in law school, I had a different vision of where I thought my career would go. I thought a lot about being a government prosecutor. One of my uncles was a federal judge – my cousin, his son, is a federal judge as well, coincidentally, and I have an indelible childhood memory of being in his courtroom and hearing “all rise” and seeing everyone stand as he walked in. I thought, “Ok, so that was cool.” But it’s one thing to say, “OK, I want to practice law,” and it’s another thing to do it and to see people doing it every day. That’s how you get a better sense of what your life is going to be like. LD: That’s so true. People don’t always think about that when they’re starting undergraduate school, or even starting law school. What were the experiences that guided your career choices? EH: When I was looking for work as a summer associate, it was a very difficult time to get internships. There were so many young lawyers coming out of law school, and I was very fortunate that my first job was at an excellent firm like Sullivan & Cromwell. I wasn’t sure that I wanted to do what Sullivan & Cromwell did, because I really didn’t know very much about it. I wasn’t sure if I would fit in in a corporate environment, but I was so happily surprised. It was wonderful to find out that I had so much in common with the people in the litigation department
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
233
500
500 in terms of having very similar values, being interested in similar things, and being very dedicated to doing the best job that we could for clients. LD: Did you have mentors at Sullivan who helped you understand what your style would be as a lawyer? EH: Oh, very much. Penny Shane was very much my role model at S&C. She’s an excellent litigator who’s also very motivated toward mentoring women and seeing that women are promoted in the profession. Working with Penny was a wonderful experience in terms of learning how to write and learning how to present ideas and get organized. In addition, Bill Snipes jumps out as an excellent practitioner and someone who has worked tirelessly to promote diversity in the profession and equity in our society. He has a great sense of humor. He’s a no-nonsense kind of person, and he would always just say it as he saw it. LD: What have been some of your favorite cases? EH: One that has to be in the top three was a bankruptcy restructuring we handled recently. I was the litigation partner on the matter with a team of about a dozen associates in our New York and London offices, and it was a very fast-track matter that involved multiple jurisdictions, multiple languages, multiple legal regimes, dozens of witnesses, millions of pages of documents and a very tight deadline with the bankruptcy court. Every time we had a challenge, everyone on our team really pulled together to find a solution. The level of support and camaraderie made what could have been an exhausting experience actually exciting and fun. It’s gratifying to see that kind of cooperation and that kind of support across groups for our clients. LD: Absolutely. Are there trends you see in the cases you’re working on now? EH: One trend is the #MeToo movement. While the law hasn’t changed, I think the way that we’re approaching our matters has been sensitized to these issues, the way that we’re approaching diversity is different and some of the cases I’ve been handling include making sure that there are no #MeToo issues that we have to be concerned about. Four or five years ago, these questions weren’t being asked in quite the same way, or at all. Now, people are focusing on it, and we’re developing new ways to deal with this. It’s an exciting time. LD: Absolutely. Can we take just a minute to talk about what you do when you’re not working? Do you spend time with your family? It sounds like they’re so close-knit and amazing.
234
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
EH: I have a fabulous family. I love spending time with them. That’s definitely the most important thing that I do when I’m not working. I have a wonderful husband who is very supportive. He’s the Head of the Writing Department at Eugene Lang College at the New School University in Greenwich Village. He is my dearest friend, and we live in the best city in the world. New York is endless. Somebody said that if you get bored in New York, you’re bored with life. It’s really true. We love to go to the movies, we read lots and lots of books, we love to go to art galleries. I have a modest but growing art collection, so I enjoy going to galleries and looking at pieces that I might add. I could spend all day going to museums. All you need is comfortable shoes. LD: Any particular type of art that you like to collect? EH: Right now, I’m collecting psychedelic pop art. LD: Oh, cool. EH: It’s really interesting. Alex Gross is a painter who I really, really like and I’ve collected a few of his pieces. He takes cabinet cards, which are old-fashioned photographs mounted on hard card-stock, they’re made with silver and other valuable ingredients. He’ll take those and he’ll paint over them and he’ll make some of the most interesting additions. You can find these cards if you go to a garage sale; people don’t really value them anymore so they’ll throw stuff like that out by the boxful. They’re usually pictures of ordinary people who had their pictures taken 100 years ago, and then he’ll doodle on them. They’re brilliant. I love collecting his art. It’s a lot of fun. I am also loving Afrofuturism right now. Wangechi Mutu at the Metropolitan Museum of Art is going to be outstanding. LD: So let me get this right. A high-pressure litigation practice for market-leading financial institutions and corporations. A full docket of pro bono and public interest initiatives. A commitment to legal industry diversity and inclusion. An active family life and a growing interest in art collection. Ellen, there are only 24 hours in a day? EH: I am so fortunate. I really enjoy what I do: I get to read and write for a living, what a privilege. I have such respect for the people I work with, we serve such excellent clients. Having the support of my firm for the things that matter to me – providing the highest levels of client service, giving back to our communities, prioritizing a fair and equitable workplace – means the world to me. I am grateful for every hour!
500
Joseph Rice
Alex Romain
MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.
IRELL & MANELLA LOS ANGELES
David Rievman
Anthony Romero
SKADDEN NEW YORK
ACLU NEW YORK
Robert Riley
Steven Rosenblum
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
WACHTELL NEW YORK
David Ring
Hannah Ross
TAYLOR RING LOS ANGELES
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
Darren Robbins
Joel Rubinstein
ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO
WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK
John Roberts
Samuel Rudman
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.
Graham Robinson
Kathryn Ruemmler
SKADDEN NEW YORK
LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.
Larry Rogers Jr.
Walter Ruiz
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
RUIZ LAW ARLINGTON, VA.
Christine Rolph
Rick Rule
LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
235
Sean O’Shea CADWALADER (NEW YORK)
500
SEAN O’SHEA SEAN O’SHEA FOUND IT EASY TO
separate the good guys from the bad guys. A hardcharging prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn in the late 1980s, he had plenty of chances to do so, handling crimes from fraud to arson. He had come from Chicago to New York, believing it was the ideal place to learn trial law. Experience proved him right, providing the foundation for O’Shea to emerge as one of the most experienced and respected white-collar and defense lawyers around. With 85 trials (and counting) under his belt, he has become an eminence of hard-core financial litigation, representing companies and individuals in a wide array of complex matters, often including international intrigue with sophistication and derring-do. He’s been awarded by the Department of Justice as well as the FBI, for which he serves as an instructor on trial tactics in Quantico, Va. To achieve that reputation, he circled the bases on the entire ballpark of wrongdoing - from prosecution to defense.
“When you’re a prosecutor, you indict on your schedule. You can try the case pretty much on your schedule. You have the weight of the evidence, and you choose whether to indict,” he says. “But when you’re a defense lawyer, people come to you with problems that are really, really complex and sticky. And the time frame isn’t convenient. And you have to work against what is often a formed body of evidence.” Defense lawyers have to be able to fight that developed body of evidence and win, O’Shea says. The desire to develop those kinds of skills prompted him to leave the Eastern District, where he had become chief of the business and securities fraud unit, to start his own firm, O’Shea Partners, in 1996. Twenty years later, the firm merged with Boies Schiller Flexner, and last year, O’Shea and two partners, Michael Petrella and Amanda Devereux, left to amplify the trial practice at Wall Street stalwart Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Lawdragon: Cadwalader seems like a great fit for your practice. How’s it going? Sean O’Shea: It is going extremely well. I wanted a solid firm with a first-rate reputation and a lot of good people that really needed what I have to offer. Cadwalader is a capital markets powerhouse, but firm leadership also wanted to strengthen its high-end litigation, so it’s been ideal. Everyone has been very supportive, and we’re going to be hiring more people
PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS
BY KATRINA DEWEY like me in the marketplace. The leaders of the firm are no-drama types, which was a selling point, and they convinced me that they needed me and were committed to continuing to build a leading litigation practice. They need even more first-tier litigation partners, and they’ve given me free rein to look out for them. LD: Amazing. I’d love to hear more about how you got here. You weren’t always in New York, right? SO: No. I grew up in Chicago, and my parents were both from Ireland. I was the first in my extended family to go to college. I earned my bachelor’s degree at the University of Illinois, a great public academic institution, and then I went to law school at Northwestern. When I finished, boutique firms were all the rage, and I got an offer from a very high-quality one that that had spun out of Kirkland & Ellis called Hedlund, Hunter & Lynch. Later, Latham & Watkins came along, and offered them a merger deal, which as a young associate, wasn’t necessarily the best thing for me. But I soon found myself really enjoying Latham and the people there, and I stayed for five or six years, then came to New York to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. LD: Interesting. So why the move? SO: New York is really the capital of white-collar crime. And that’s where I wanted to be. I wanted to do white collar; I wanted to try cases against the best lawyers in the country, and I thought that the most sophisticated stuff in the country was getting done here. And I got that opportunity. I remember people in the U.S. Attorney’s Office used to see me sitting in the courtroom, in my limited spare time, watching the best trial lawyers in America work. And I learned from them, became friendly with them and butted heads with them, and it was a really fun place to be. LD: Would you say that, in a way, you found your identity as a trial lawyer at the U.S. Attorney’s Office? SO: Oh, no question. It’s funny because I’ve become the go-to guy for people in the U.S. Attorney’s Office who want to start their own practice and want to find out more about how to do it. Young lawyers ask me, “Hey, where do you go to learn to be a trial lawyer?” Without question, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is the place. I tried a ton of cases there. And I was known in the office as the trial hound; I would pick up other people’s trials, even what we called “dog” cases, and just loved every minute of it. Because you just learn so much with that jury in the box and the things you
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
237
500
500 have to come up with. Look, the first few trials you do, you’re hearing your voice bounce off the walls, like, “Wow, there’s actually a jury in the box.” And “Look, Mom, I’m actually doing this.” By the 11th or 12th trial, you’re actually in the game, and you really start to know what you’re doing in a courtroom. I was lucky that a lot of defendants took the witness stand. That enabled me to develop crossexamination skills that other prosecutors didn’t really have. Ultimately, I ended up where I wanted to be, in the white-collar unit and, eventually, heading it. LD: Are there particular cases that served as a foundation for what you learned there and what you’ve done since? SO: When I was the head of the unit, I did several trials against a guy who was very well known at the time, Harvey Myerson, who had started a law firm called Myerson & Kuhn. That case came about because I was reading The Wall Street Journal one morning, and saw that Lehman Brothers had terminated its relationship with Myerson & Kuhn. And the way they disclosed it was curious to me. Usually, if they put out any kind of a statement, it’s the sort of pablum that comes out of the public relations office, but this was a little harsher: It mentioned irregularities. So I ended up looking into this. And it turned out that associates within the firm had found a double set of billing books where the hours actually recorded by lawyers were being inflated. Myerson & Kuhn turned out to be shot through with corrupt billing practices, and not just involving clients. Harvey Myerson was overbilling his partners for personal items from cigars in London to his hairpieces. We ended up convicting him twice and dismissing a third indictment, so that was one example of an exciting trial. LD: Impressive. Cases like that give you a tremendous adrenaline rush. How about some others? SO: Another one that I recall very well, because it had so much human drama involved, was an arson matter, and the suspects had mob connections. The chief of the organized crime section asked me to get involved because a firefighter had died in the blaze. And this was no ordinary firefighter – it was a rescue squad firefighter in New York named Tommy Williams, who had pulled people out of New York Harbor when a USAir flight trying to take off from LaGuardia airport careened into the water in September 1989. These rescue guys are real heroes. I heard the story about Tommy Williams, and I was hooked. The case turned out to have all kinds of very sticky issues, with forensics
238
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
as well as expert witnesses. There was a lot of tense cross-examination. Very hard-fought trial, with good lawyers on both sides, but we ultimately won. LD: Those are fantastic examples. When you’re in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it’s easier to separate the good guys from the bad guys, right? SO: Sometimes. Though over the length of my career, I’ve seen that there are sometimes shades of gray. But you’re doing important work. And if you’re really into it, you’re doing work that affects lives, affects society. You’re always a popular guy to talk to at cocktail parties. LD: You do have the best stories. SO: I do have some stories. It’s been years since I left the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but when Judge Edward Korman sees me at a cocktail party, he comes racing across the room and says, “Counselor, tell me more stories.” Because he remembers those trials and he says to me, “You know, those two trials are the most exciting trials I had in all my time in the bench.” And I say to him, “You know, Judge, that’s really nice to hear.” And I’ll tell you, those weren’t even the most exciting trials I’ve had. Trials are like roller coasters, really. They’re uncomfortable. The preparation for trial is misery. But you know, I would get that adrenaline rush of trying a case, and I’d be walking around the U.S. Attorney’s Office looking for someone who wanted to dump a trial. I was addicted to the trial drug. LD: And then the day comes when you decide to look at the private sector. How did that happen? SO: There are two things, really. One is that I had two children, and I was thinking about the future. What also can’t be dismissed is that you look at the trial lawyers who are really renowned and they’re almost never in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It’s not because the trial talent isn’t there – it certainly is. But prosecutors work with the evidence. And great trial lawyers have to learn to work against the evidence. Just to pick one I really admire, Gerry Shargel, who recently retired; he and I opposed each other at trials, and I watched how he always had to work against the weight of the evidence. In terms of building out your skill set as a lawyer, doing defense work, even doing private plaintiff work, just provides that extra level of challenge that I think you’ve got to seek out if you want to be at the top tier of the profession. LD: That is the best explanation I’ve ever heard of it. Was that when you hung out your own shingle?
500
SO: It was. My father thought I was crazy when I told him I wasn’t going to go back to a big law firm and that I was going to start my own practice. And I have to say the first week, it wasn’t very exciting. I was staring at the phone, starting to wonder if I had made a huge mistake. The week before, my phone had been ringing off the hook: The assistant director of the FBI needed to talk to me, the U.S. Attorney needed to talk to me. I was really in demand. And the silence, in comparison, was overwhelming. But you know, the phone starts to ring, you get involved in stuff. And one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know, you’re off to the races. LD: Was there a particular case that confirmed that you had made the right decision? A significant matter, or one where you felt you were learning something new or going up against new people? SO: One of my first big cases was representing a law firm, actually because of a call from Gerry Shargel, who was familiar with the expertise I had developed in law firm fraud. He got me involved in helping that firm through the crisis when its prominent founder admitted overbilling the U.S. government. It showed me a different perspective on the good guys versus the bad guys. You start to see the other side of the equation as a defense lawyer, that people make mistakes. You start to see the humanity of those people, which maybe as a prosecutor, I wasn’t so attuned to. LD: It is hard for prosecutors to do their jobs and dwell on the humanity, isn’t it? SO: Definitely. But as a defense lawyer, it’s often my job to tell prosecutors that there are shades of gray. The law firm case isn’t a great example of that because I think that guy would be the first one to say, “What I did was flat wrong.” But there are many cases where I’ve been successful in talking prosecutors out of indictments. It’s our job as defense lawyers to not just make them see humanity where they might not otherwise see it, and maybe refine their course of action a little. Good defense attorneys are skilled at painting a fuller picture. I had a case a few years back where my client – the founder of an internet gaming company – was threatened with indictment. Her co-founder represented by another prominent law firm, pleaded guilty and paid $300 million in forfeiture. Other lawyers had advised her to plead guilty as well. When I came into the case, I took a different tack both factually and legally. I developed evidence that the co-founder (who
was cooperating against my client) was lying, and I developed a legal strategy that I took an appeal to the Department of Justice. That resulted in the case being dropped. And you know, those quiet successes are the ones that, as a defense lawyer, you don’t get to tout as much – no headlines, but a great victory for the client after a three-year fight. The public glory in the defense side of the practice, of course, really goes to the people who win trials. But the clients appreciate most not having to go through the trial. So that’s one of the skills that you’ve got to learn. Another decision you face is deciding what kind of lawyer you want to be. The problem with being a criminal defense lawyer is that the statistics don’t lie: Prosecutors usually get their man. Conviction rates are better than 90 percent, and you’d end up flying the white flag of surrender constantly. I decided I wanted to be a trial lawyer, full stop, not just a criminal defense lawyer, and I started handling civil cases as well. And I had real success in the financial world. LD: This was part of your evolution? SO: Yes. And I think, ultimately, you want to be a lawyer that companies turn to when they’re in a world of trouble. As an example, a couple of years back, a company – one of the country’s largest liquor distributors – was hit with a RICO lawsuit and it was really an existential threat. The plaintiff was essentially trying to put it out of business. The allegation was that my client was working with smugglers in Maryland, which is a low excise-tax state, to bring alcohol across state lines, into a high-excise tax state, New York, and sell it directly through retail establishments, harming the competitor’s sales. So I investigated the plaintiff. I learned that the competitor plaintiff had a subsidiary company in Connecticut, and my defense was not only that we weren’t doing the alleged smuggling, but in fact, the plaintiff, through a sister company, was doing it. I sued them for advancement and indemnification of my client’s legal fees, and they ended up paying for a portion of the cost of my defense of their target. LD: Very nice. SO: We try to always be on our toes, always be playing offense. The mentality of always preparing for trial, from day one, really helps you. The general counsel of that client, who has become a good friend, said to me, “You know, we interviewed a bunch of lawyers, Sean. And you’re the only one who came in with a plan to win on day one.”
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
239
500
500 Ricardo Cedillo DAVIS CEDILLO (SAN ANTONIO) 240
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
RICARDO CEDILLO RICARDO CEDILLO BINGE-WATCHES TRIALS
the way some television viewers consume entire seasons of “Breaking Bad” or “Game of Thrones.” He doesn’t do it to witness the “Big Bang moment” of the verdict, just as he doesn’t watch baseball for the thrill of seeing a home run. The San Antonio attorney visits courtrooms, even when he’s not trying a case of his own, to watch other attorneys at work, dissect winning arguments, gauge what techniques work best with juries and judges and how he might adapt those tactics to his own style. “I copycat everything,” Cedillo says. “Every successful trial lawyer is a thief. He sees good work and he says, ‘I’m going to try that.’ You get a good trial lawyer in a case, and I’ll swing by and stop in and watch. I’ll never stop doing that.” In a courtroom, Cedillo can hear how an argument is phrased, when two opposing positions create a dilemma for a judge and consider how he might have handled the situation himself. “I can start thinking, ‘Should he have done this instead of that,’ or ‘Boy, she really hit it right on the head,’ and make a note,” Cedillo explains. “If you can’t be in a trial, watching as many as possible is invaluable. I go all the time.” One of the founders of Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, the 1979 Harvard Law graduate has even taken his children with him to trials around the country. Lawdragon: That’s amazing, having your kids with you. Ricardo Cedillo: You know, I tell everybody that I’ve got two full-time jobs. My first job is to be a dad, because all five of them still require attention. They never outgrow parental involvement in my book. And my second job is to be a lawyer. Those two jobs are all-consuming, and they get harder. Because when the kids move away, the job doesn’t go away. LD: It’s impressive how you’ve managed to integrate the dual roles. RC: They’ve all been good students, they do well, they understand what I expect of them. They deliver and they have that same work ethic that I think I’ve passed on that I got from my folks. LD: I know your parents ran a bakery in San Antonio, and that you worked there when you were growing up. It’s such a compelling background, how hard you’ve worked. RC: And it pales in comparison to what my parents did. They were whirlwinds, they never stopped. They never vacationed. They had seven kids and they worked seven
PHOTO BY: JOSH HUSKIN
BY JAMES LANGFORD days a week, every single day. We closed the bakery when John F. Kennedy was buried and when one of us graduated from high school or college. Every holiday was a big day for sales: Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day. To have Mother’s Day was a marathon. My mom would make thousands of cakes. Each one handmade, each one individually decorated. If you had a quinceañera or a wedding and my mom had made the cake, that was like a status symbol. We, the kids, ran the bakery every evening. We wouldn’t get out until 11:30, 12 o’clock at night, even if we closed the bakery at 10. I even got robbed one time. LD: You’re kidding. RC: I was 12 years old. I was running it at the end of the day, and there was a guy standing at the corner bus stop, and I got suspicious. The buses wouldn’t run after a certain hour; they weren’t running then, and he kept looking in and occasionally walking toward the bakery, but he would go back to the bus stop every time a car drove up. I actually took all the money in the cash register, and I put it in a white little paper bag and I stuck it in one of our freezers because I thought, ‘This guy is up to no good.’ He came in and he pulled a knife on me, and then he came around to where I was standing by the register, and I was scared out of my mind. LD: Of course. RC: And he took the knife, and he plunged it at me, but then he pulled back and just punched me instead, right in the solar plexus. He was a full-grown man, and I was a 12-year-old boy. I’d been hit in the solar plexus before, but not by an adult, and the wind went out of me and I went flying against the wall. He opened the register. All he saw was the loose change, the nickels and dimes. And he started looking around to see where I hid the money, and then a car pulled up and he grabbed the coins and took off. A customer came in, saw what had happened and called the police. The officer who came was a beat cop, who knew the bakery, knew where we lived and went to our house and brought my mom and dad back. They saw I was all right, and my dad said, “Well, they had to take the money.” I said, “No, the money’s in the freezer.” A day or two later, the story in the paper was, “Got Donuts But No Dough.” Overall, the boys did a lot of the heavy lifting, but you know, it kept us all out of trouble. In the neighborhood, there were a lot of kids who always got in trouble, but we didn’t. We knew how to work for a living, and that made all the difference. And my parents – as hard as I think I worked – that was work: on your
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
241
500
500 feet in front of 450-degree ovens, the whole day, in San Antonio, Texas. LD: Your family and your background seem to have given you such a sense of community. RC: This town has been very good to us. That’s not an unusual thing here. All of my friends, they’re very close to their extended families. I’ve got great friends, but none are greater than my brothers and sisters. My brothers and sisters are my best friends in the whole world. And we still get together, just about every Sunday. When my parents were alive, we would always come and spend Sunday with them, kids and grandkids and everyone. They have now passed, but we’ve kept that tradition going. LD: That’s so nice. I guess there was never any doubt that you were coming back to San Antonio? RC: You know, we almost went to Chicago, believe it or not. San Antonio also has its drawbacks. It’s a very large small town, and small towns always have the haves and the have-nots. And the haves have a monopoly on all the good stuff, and the have-nots are clawing their way up. And I’ve always been a little bit of a political activist. I’ve always been a bit of a hell-raiser. When I was growing up, there was an embedded political system where the City Council was run by the haves, and they would handpick people from the neighborhoods of the have-nots. So even our political representatives on City Council were the lackeys of the haves. All made possible because everybody was elected at large. Not a single-member district. When I was a political science student at St. Mary’s University, we started raising a little hell about that. I did my master’s thesis on equitable distribution of municipal services like storm drainage. There was flooding, and even topography was against the poor neighborhoods. The richer neighborhoods tended to go into the north, which is the base of the hill country. The southern part of the city is much lower in elevation. So when we had a storm, up in the north where all the development was going on and all the lots were being paved, the run-off became much worse. I did a study of how many water rescues the fire department had to do after we got a half-inch of rain in San Antonio and I plotted them on the map. And we presented all this to City Council and said, “Why is your budget not reflecting the need that you have on your infrastructure?” Lawsuits were filed, and things started happening. We got single-member districts in. We started electing real representatives of the community. LD: That’s the good side of small communities, right? RC: Yes. That’s the good side. I’ve often thought that it might be better for my blood pressure, on a personal
242
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
level, not to practice law in San Antonio, but at the same time, I really wouldn’t have it any other way. I mean, I could do what I do from anywhere in the country, but my family is here. My brothers and sisters are here, my mom and dad were here. I don’t want to go anywhere else. There’s a lot more good than bad in San Antonio. LD: So when you started practicing in San Antonio, where did you land a job? RC: My first position was at Groce Locke & Hebdon, which was a tremendous collection of talent. Really good lawyers. Charles Smith was the big litigation partner at that law firm at the time, and I interviewed there during spring break of my third year in law school. Charlie had gotten tied up in a deposition or something and he called the receptionist and said, “I’m going to leave as soon as I can, don’t let him leave.” I had been waiting since 1:30 p.m. and it was already after 5 p.m.; my wife was getting out of work, and I had ridden with her, so I said, “Look, I’ve got to go or I’m going to be stranded downtown.” So I thanked them and left. Well, I don’t know how Charlie did it, but that night, I got a call at my in-laws’ house. He tracked me down, apologized and said, “I need you to come tomorrow and we’re going to take you to lunch.” The next day at lunch, he had a bunch of partners there and a bunch of associates. Two of the associates who joined us were trying a case downtown – we were really close to the courthouse – and they said, “Why don’t you come with us and watch a little bit of the trial this afternoon?” I went back with them and watched it. Then, I think the next night, Charlie called and offered me the job and I took it. I graduated law school on a Thursday in Massachusetts and that following Monday, I started work. I already knew my way around a courthouse a little, because of work I had done at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, and I knew how to get on my feet and to ask questions. I grabbed every paralegal, every secretary, every law clerk when I didn’t know how to do something; I learned real quick. And Charlie would assign cases. It was a joke at Groce Locke & Hebdon that you didn’t come back from lunch on a Friday afternoon because Charlie would walk the halls with an armload of files and say, “Hey, I’ve got these for you.” I’d come back from lunch and say, “How many have you got for me, Charlie?” They were little cases, slip-and-fall actions and fender-benders. And I picked jury after jury after jury, I made opening statements, I made closing arguments and I did cross-examinations, all involving master the facts and issues and getting up to speed quickly. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon. com/2019/12/08/lawyer-limelight-ricardo-cedillo.
500
Antony Ryan
Hollis Salzman
CRAVATH NEW YORK
ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK
Edward Ryan
P. Anthony Sammi
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RALEIGH, N.C.
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Elizabeth Sacksteder
Christina Guerola Sarchio
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.
Faiza Saeed
Richard Sarver
CRAVATH NEW YORK
BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS
Ronald Safer
John Savarese
RILEY SAFER CHICAGO
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Kelli Sager
William Savitt
DAVIS WRIGHT LOS ANGELES
WACHTELL NEW YORK
Susan Saltzstein
Jonathan Schiller
SKADDEN NEW YORK
BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK
Patrick Salvi
Ivan Schlager
SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO
SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Patrick Salvi II
Allison Schneirov
SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO
SKADDEN NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
243
500
500 Kenneth T. Lumb CORBOY & DEMETRIO (CHICAGO)
244
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
KENNETH T. LUMB PUBLIC SERVICE IS OF TEN AN
inherent part of a plaintiffs’ practice, particularly at leading firms like Chicago’s Corboy & Demetrio. The firm’s managing partner, Kenneth T. Lumb, has taken that spirit to an even higher level through years of military service and ongoing commitment to U.S. veterans. Lumb served as a Captain in the Army JAG Corps at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., before joining Corboy & Demetrio in 1995. As a reservist, he served again at Walter Reed after being called to active duty following the start of the Iraq war in 2003. The experiences have had a lasting impact on Lumb, who like his fellow partners has amassed a long string of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements for firm clients. He graduated from Notre Dame in 1988 and earned his J.D. from DePaul College of Law in 1991. Lawdragon: Can you talk about why you wanted to do the ROTC program and join the Army? Did you have family members in the military? Kenneth T. Lumb: There certainly is a military background in my family. My grandfather enlisted in the Navy in World War II and served in the Pacific in the Seabees. My father was an Army artillery officer in the 50’s and my older brother, who also went to Notre Dame on an ROTC scholarship, was an infantry officer in the Army. I guess I’m the black sheep, because I wasn’t a combat arms officer. When I was growing up, my dad was a high school history teacher with a particular interest in military history. There were always military books and magazines laying around, which I found I enjoyed reading. My father used to say that historically there were three noble professions, but he always added the military and teaching to the list. So, the idea of public service was always a given. I think those experiences had much to do with my desire to be an Army officer. LD: When at Notre Dame did you develop an interest in the law, or did this interest develop earlier? KTL: It’s hard to pinpoint because I’ve wanted to be a lawyer or an Army officer for as long as I can remember. At Notre Dame, however, I took several undergraduate constitutional law classes that really galvanized me. I was fascinated by the subject matter and the arguments, and I also found myself rooting for the little guy, Clarence Gideon over the State of Florida, for instance. I think that experience foreshadowed my affinity for representing injured plaintiffs. LD: What did you hope you would be doing with a legal career in the Army?
PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN
BY JOHN RYAN KTL: It wasn’t until I began applying for an ROTC scholarship in high school that I learned about the JAG Corps and realized I could be a lawyer and an officer. My plan up through my first year of law school was to make a career out of the Army. LD: How did you end up at Corboy & Demetrio? KTL: Either through providence or a happy accident, depending on your outlook. My wife’s family came from the same town in Ireland as Mary Kay Rochford, now Illinois Appellate Court Justice, who is married to Corboy & Demetrio partner Mike Demetrio. As I was finishing my first year of law school, my wife’s aunt gave Mike a call, and suddenly I had an interview to be a law clerk. Other than the time I’ve spent on active duty in the Army, I’ve been here ever since. LD: When did you know that you wanted to become a plaintiffs’ lawyer as opposed to a defense-side lawyer or other type of litigator? KTL: After a summer clerking at Corboy & Demetrio, I knew I wanted to be a trial lawyer representing plaintiffs. It was incredibly exciting to watch Tom Demetrio and Phil Corboy in action. But what left the biggest impression was their compassion for their clients, people experiencing enormous loss and often at the low point of their lives. To be able to help restore some of what was taken away is just enormously gratifying, and that’s why I do this kind of work. LD: Please talk about your tour at the Walter Reed facility. What were your responsibilities? KTL: When I graduated from Notre Dame, I was commissioned an armor second lieutenant but received an educational delay to attend law school. After I graduated from law school and passed the bar, the Army brought me on to active duty in the JAG Corps. I originally requested assignment as a prosecutor with the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, where I was looking forward to jumping out of airplanes, but the Army had other ideas. The JAG Corps personnel folks decided my experience at Corboy & Demetrio fit well with Walter Reed, the defense department’s largest medical center. It didn’t seem nearly as interesting as Ft. Bragg at first but turned out to be an amazing experience, and I ended up spending my entire military career giving legal advice to Army doctors. My first assignment was as the Medical Claims Judge Advocate, which is Army-speak for medical malpractice defense attorney. I represented the Army during the administrative phase of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
245
500
500 cases arising out of care at Walter Reed and at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and worked with the local U.S. Attorney’s Office on claims that were put in suit. I was also the legal advisor to the quality improvement and peer review committees and provided advice on hospital law and federal administrative law.
as the chair of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Military Affairs Committee and the American Association of Justice’s Federal Tort Liability and Military Advocacy Section.
Looking back on that time, the breadth of the experience was just amazing. As a young captain, I routinely met with colonels who were heads of departments to learn about the medicine involved in a case. I’d even get called to watch autopsies in deaths involving care with the potential for litigation.
KTL: While we are best known for representing plaintiffs who are individuals, we also represent businesses. In a recent settlement, we obtained $2.1 million for a law firm in an attorney-client contract dispute. The law firm had contracted with a corporation to handle all legal matters surrounding acquisitions of contracts with Volkswagen for the storage of vehicles. The contract was written so the law firm would receive either a set amount per month, or a contingency fee percentage of net income derived from the contract between the corporation and Volkswagen once net income reached a threshold amount. Plaintiff alleged that it was entitled to the contingency fee and we were able to able to secure an equitable settlement for our client.
LD: Very interesting. Did you then rejoin the firm? KTL: When I left active duty in early 1996, Tom and Phil were nice enough to give me a job, but I also stayed active in the Army Reserve for the next 15 years or so, with their enthusiastic support. I was never in a drilling reserve unit but was assigned to Walter Reed as the mobilization backfill for the deputy of the legal office. In peacetime, that generally meant two-to-four weeks of active duty per year to fill in while the deputy was on leave or on temporary duty elsewhere. But soon after the start of the Iraq war in 2003, I was formally mobilized and spent six months at Walter Reed, mostly as the deputy of the JAG office and sometimes as the acting head of the office. Service at a medical center in wartime was entirely different than my earlier experience. Walter Reed was inundated with casualties, and the pace was somewhat frenetic. Military commanders tend to view their lawyers as problem solvers and not strictly as legal advisors, and the range of issues we dealt with was enormous, ranging from the use of deadly force at the installation’s gates to whether Jessica Lynch could accept gifts from the public, and everything in between. One of my favorites was a phone call about a wounded special forces soldier who refused to give up his sidearm. That was an interesting night. One of the main jobs was simply to find creative – but legal – ways for commanders to make the lives of wounded soldiers and their families a little easier. That was important because misusing appropriated funds can land you in jail. That six months was a humbling experience. It was certainly inconvenient to be away from my family for most of that time, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to the sacrifice of those casualties and their families. LD: Can you please tell us about any of your extra-practice or community activities, including your ongoing connection to the military? KTL: Much of my extracurricular activities involve veterans, service members and their families. I’ve served
246
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
LD: Let’s move to what matters are keeping you busy these days. Is there a recent verdict or settlement you can highlight?
LD: What about the months or year ahead? Are there particular cases on which you will be in trial or that will occupy most of your time? KTL: I’m currently busy working on a number of mass tort cases involving numerous consumers with lymphoma related to Roundup and women with ovarian cancer from talcum powder. I’m also getting ready to try a case involving a gasoline pipeline spill that contaminated an entire community’s drinking water supply in central Illinois. LD: Did you seek out the role of managing partner or were you asked to do it? Are there any leadership challenges right now or firm initiatives that you can discuss? KTL: I was appointed Managing Partner in January. I help guide the overall strategic direction of our firm as well as manage the types of cases we become involved with. In addition, I assist in the training of our young attorneys and in the marketing of our firm. I also help manage our firm’s business operations, ensuring we are employing technology in all aspects of our law practice. There are no leadership challenges at our firm. We are a well-oiled, 65-year-old firm that has a long track record of success. One reason for that success is our firm’s structure. Our firm also has a long history of community service and as managing partner, I want to continue that tradition and include as an initiative community service to our U.S. Veterans. Read the full Q&A at hwww.lawdragon.com/2019/11/25/lawyerlimelight-kenneth-t-lumb.
500
George Schoen
Kannon Shanmugam
CRAVATH NEW YORK
PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Richard Schoenberger
Nina Shaw
WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO
DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES
Susan Schwartz
Joseph Shenker
CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK
Carolyn Daley Scott
Leopold Sher
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS
Christopher Seeger
Paul Shim
SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK
CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK
Andre Segura
Gina Shishima
ACLU HOUSTON
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN
Phillippe Selendy
Anne Sidrys
SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK
KIRKLAND & ELLIS CHICAGO
Joseph Sellers
Roman Silberfeld
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
ROBINS KAPLAN LOS ANGELES
Karen Patton Seymour
Dawn Siler-Nixon
GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK
FORD HARRISON TAMPA
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
247
500
500 Bonny Sweeney HAUSFELD (SAN FRANCISCO)
248
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
BONNY SWEENEY BONNY SWEENEY HAS BUILT ONE OF
the nation’s top antitrust litigation practices by thriving on the challenge of going up against powerful opponents in massively complex cases. She has taken on heavyweights in the financial world, including as co-lead counsel in a class-action antitrust suit against major credit card companies and, currently, in a closely-watched case involving foreign exchange market rigging. Sweeney is a partner in Hausfeld’s San Francisco office and co-chair of the firm’s U.S. antitrust practice. Lawdragon: What cases do you focus on? Bonny E. Sweeney: Most of my work is in antitrust litigation. I represent businesses and individuals injured by anticompetitive practices such as pricefixing, exclusive dealing, and monopolization. I also handle other complex litigation for clients in matters involving sports law, contract disputes, human rights violations, and fraud claims. LD: How did you become interested in this area? BES: Early in my career, when I was a defense lawyer, I worked on a few antitrust cases and found them fascinating. When I moved to a plaintiffs’ firm my first assignments were two blockbuster antitrust cases – one against Nasdaq market makers and the other against the NCAA. Both cases were complex, challenging, and high-stakes. LD: What do you enjoy about antitrust work? BES: The complexity of antitrust keeps my cases interesting. As a practitioner you are constantly learning about the market dynamics of new industries, working with economists, and applying complex judge-made law. LD: What has been a career highlight for you so far? BES: In 2015, I joined Hausfeld, a leading antitrust firm. This has been a tremendous move for me. My colleagues include some of the best and brightest antitrust lawyers in the country. In addition, the firm is committed to social and economic justice; our lawyers represent victims of human rights abuses, environmental and other public health threats, and harassment and discrimination. LD: Can you identify an influential course or professor? BES: My favorite law professor was Karen Nelson Moore, now a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was my civil procedure and tax law pro-
PHOTO BY: RORY EARNSHAW
BY ALISON PREECE fessor. Although I had zero interest in either of those topics when I started, and I have stayed far away from tax in my professional life, Judge Moore was the kind of teacher who made those subjects come alive. My strong base in civil procedure helps me every day in my complex litigation practice. But more importantly, Judge Moore was a role model. She was brainy, confident, composed, and always compassionate. LD: Do you have any advice for law school students? BES: Study widely. You never know what areas of the law will interest you. Take advantage of the opportunity to try new areas. LD: What about mentors after you became a lawyer? BES: One of my first supervisors was Sandra Lynch, who at the time headed up the litigation department at my former law firm and who is now a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Lynch was a fierce and brilliant advocate who demanded perfection. I still review my writing with her voice in my head. Judge Lynch’s focus on excellence made me a better lawyer. LD: Is there a favorite case you can discuss? BES: My favorite case is an antitrust class action we successfully tried against the NCAA, Law/Hall/Schreiber v. NCAA, in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. We represented a class of college coaches who challenged an NCAA rule that limited the salaries of those coaches to $12,000 for the academic year. The jury found for the plaintiffs after a four-week trial. That case had everything – interesting legal and factual issues, fabulous clients, a tough opponent, wonderful colleagues, and a thoughtful presiding judge. LD: What are some challenges of your current role? BES: As Co-Chair with Scott Martin of the U.S. firm’s Antitrust Practice, I help manage a claimant-side practice in an area in which the law has become increasingly friendly to defendants. Standards for surviving a motion to dismiss are higher, classes are harder to certify, and judges and juries are sometimes skeptical about the very real harm caused by anticompetitive conduct. At the same time, the U.S. has seen an increase in economic concentration, a decrease in competition, and a decline in public enforcement of the antitrust laws – making private enforcement of the antitrust laws more important than ever. Our practice is busy, challenging, and always interesting. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon. com/2019/07/29/lawyer-limelight-bonny-e-sweeney.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
249
500
500 250
Gerald Silk
David Sochia
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS
Stuart Singer
Amy Fisch Solomon
BOIES SCHILLER FT. LAUDERDALE, FLA.
GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES
Thomas Siracusa
Sonia Sotomayor
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
Rachel Skaistis
Grace Speights
CRAVATH NEW YORK
MORGAN LEWIS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Daniel Slifkin
Kalpana Srinivasan
CRAVATH NEW YORK
SUSMAN & GODFREY LOS ANGELES
Daniel Small
Richard Stark
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Todd Smith
Ann Beth Stebbins
POWER ROGERS CHICAGO
SKADDEN NEW YORK
Abby Cohen Smutny
Brian Stekloff
WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.
WILKINSON WALSH WASHINGTON, D.C.
Thomas Sobol
Cate Stetson
HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
Bryan Stevenson
Justin Swartz
EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE MONTGOMERY, ALA.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK
Theodore Stevenson
Bonny Sweeney
MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS
HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO
Kosta Stojikovic
Afsaneh Ashley Tabaddor
WILKINSON WALSH WASHINGTON, D.C.
NATIONAL ASSOC. OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES LOS ANGELES
Jocelyn Strauber
Germaine Tanner
SKADDEN NEW YORK
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
Adam Streisand
Erik Tavzel
SHEPPARD MULLIN LOS ANGELES
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Lary Stromfeld
John C. Taylor
CADWALADER NEW YORK
TAYLOR & RING LOS ANGELES
Diane Sullivan
Tina Tchen
WEIL GOTSHAL PRINCETON
BUCKLEY SANDLER CHICAGO
Tara Sutton
Anita Wallace Thomas
ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS
NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA
Christine Swanick
Clarence Thomas
SHEPPARD MULLIN NEW YORK
U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
251
Luis Penalver CAHILL GORDON (NEW YORK)
500
LUIS PENALVER LUIS PENLAVER IS THE CO-ADMINISTRATIVE
Partner of Cahill Gordon & Reindel and has practiced at the storied New York institution since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1994. He credits his fellow partners for providing the mentorship necessary for his rise to prominence in corporate law. Penalver also typifies the type of transactional lawyer to make the Lawdragon 500, having worked on billions of dollars of complex deals in just the past few years. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the type of deals you tend to handle? Luis Penalver: I represent leading investment and commercial banks, and corporations in debt and equity securities transactions, bank fi nancings, mergers and acquisitions and out-of-court debt restructurings. My practice also includes representation of both public and private companies in connection with general corporate and securities law matters. LD: How did you first become interested in this type of corporate practice? LP: I have always been drawn to the corporate side of the law as I have an MBA from Harvard Business School and an undergraduate degree in economics. I thoroughly enjoy advising clients with their most complex transactions. LD: Can you share a few things about your practice that keep you excited about it? LP: What is exciting about my practice is that every day is different. Every day I walk in and write down my to-do list and then the clients begin to call and email with questions about current and prospective deals. My clients keep me on my toes and that makes it exciting. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, can you identify one interesting deal that stands out? LP: I have had the privilege to work on a lot of interesting deals, but one stands out. The deal that stands out was the take-private transaction where Michael Dell and Silverlake took Dell Computer private in a $24.7 billion transaction. That deal involved raising billions of financing in a tough
PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN
BY JOHN RYAN market and had a mixture of shareholder lawsuits and activist investor Carl Icahn urging shareholders to turn down the deal, but in the face of all of that, the deal got done. Plus it was the one deal my kids could understand as everyone has heard of Dell computers. LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while you were at Harvard? LP: I always knew I wanted to be a corporate lawyer; I had no idea it would be this rewarding. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students, whether they’re planning for a corporate practice or some other field? LP: My advice for law students is simple: work hard and find a practice you truly love. Being a lawyer is extremely rewarding but you have to be passionate about it. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? LP: I have been fortunate to have two great mentors – both at my firm. Bill Hartnett and Jim Clark. Two of the finest lawyers you will ever meet. LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation that you admire, and why? LP: I have had the privilege of working across the table from many fine lawyers but the one who stands out to this day is Josh Korff from Kirkland & Ellis. Josh is really smart but what I admire about Josh is that he works with you, not against you while still advocating for his client. I have worked with Josh on numerous occasions and when hiccups arise we work together to get an outcome that works for our respective clients. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer, and how do you think others see you? LP: I would describe myself as practical and commercial. I try not to get bogged down on theoretical points that really do not affect my client. I would hope others see me the same way. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? LP: I try to spend as much time as I can with my family and friends when not working and enjoy an occasional round of golf. I also enjoy reading biographies.
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
253
Doris Cheng, Richard Schoenberger and Michael Kelly WALKUP MELODIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
500
MICHAEL KELLY, RICHARD SCHOENBERGER AND DORIS CHENG IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO FIND
any three law partners who together have done more for injured plaintiffs and their families than Michael Kelly, Richard Schoenberger and Doris Cheng of San Franciscobased Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger. Each has a long track record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements as well as a proven commitment to education and public service outside the courtroom. The partnership’s shared vision of service to clients and community has continued Walkup Melodia’s long-earned reputation in the Bay Area and beyond as a legal institution of achievement and integrity. Lawdragon: How would you describe the firm as a place to work? Richard Schoenberger: We work in a collaborative environment where we often round-table our cases and/or try them together. I like to think that we take our cases very seriously, but not ourselves. We are privileged to have the most serious cases imaginable, and as such, there’s never a dull moment. We like to keep our reputation as real trial lawyers who are trustworthy and talented. So, we take risks where we need to do so and never back down from a good fight. Michael Kelly: We are blessed to have a firm culture where we are united in our mission to make life better for clients who have had life-changing injuries. The diversity in team members’ backgrounds, educations and life experiences permit us to widely collaborate in our case framing and messaging for juries. The result is a law firm where everyone’s views are respected and there are rarely wrong answers. Doris Cheng: The cornerstone of our firm is respect. We are conscientious about respecting each other as people, as critical thinkers, and as advocates. We recognize that each person in our firm has valuable insight and creative ideas. No one in our firm is shy about having a voice and using their voice. Our confidence in our attorneys and staff empowers us to collaborate freely as partners on our cases and for our clients. LD: Are there aspects that stand out about the firm’s culture or philosophy of client service? RS: We care about the clients above all else. We never make decisions that don’t have our clients’ best interests
PHOTO BY: RORY EARNSHAW
BY JOHN RYAN
in mind. It begins with our extremely fair fee agreement and commitment to communication. We also recognize that our clients’ best results are directly related to our willingness to take their cases to trial. We are known as a true trial firm as opposed to a firm that settles for less. That serves to maximize our clients’ recoveries, which is the ultimate goal. MK: From the very beginnings of our firm in 1959, Bruce Walkup instilled a philosophy requiring that our clients’ interests always be placed first. While that concept is not novel and is a universally accepted ethical tenet, it makes a difference when the founder trumpets that principle regularly and with zeal. For this reason our decisions on prosecution, tactics, venue, settlement or trial are always prefaced with this question: Is the client better off? DC: Our clients have endured some of the greatest losses in human experience. They have lost loved ones, their independence, or sometimes hope. Our mission is to maximize their recovery with the aim of improving their quality of life. We hope that means every resolution supports their most important needs, whether their needs are physiological, medical, safety, security, emotional or societal / community consciousness. We listen carefully to our clients’ needs so that we can answer the question as to whether we have ably served them. LD: A firm like yours must get so many inquiries. Can you talk about how you decide what cases to take on? RS: We have the luxury of receiving literally several hundred calls or inquiries a month and remain quite selective so as to be able to devote the time, resources and attention necessary to do our best for individual clients. We typically take cases involving catastrophic injuries or wrongful death and are fortunate to have a group of lawyers well-suited to handling cases of all types. MK: There are always practical questions in deciding to take new cases: Is there enough time? Do we have sufficient resources? Is the issue one we have faced before? Will we need additional staffing? Can we affect a meaningful positive change in the client’s life? Beyond that, we ask if we are advancing a broader societal good by taking this case. Will we be making new law? Is there the opportunity to set an example and make the community or the larger world a safer place?
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
255
500
500 256
Sally Thurston
Jim Walden
SKADDEN NEW YORK
WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK
Steven Toll
Alexandra Walsh
COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.
WILKINSON WALSH WASHINGTON, D.C.
Robert Townsend
Robert Walters
CRAVATH NEW YORK
GIBSON DUNN DALLAS
Max Tribble
Leigh Walton
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
BASS BERRY NASHVILLE
Lisa Tsai
Cecillia Wang
REID COLLINS AUSTIN
ACLU NEW YORK
Jeroen Van Kwawegen
Mark Wawro
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
Christine Varney
Jillian Weiss
CRAVATH NEW YORK
THE LAW OFFICE OF JILLIAN T. WEISS NEW YORK
Kathi Vidal
Stephen Weiss
WINSTON & STRAWN MENLO PARK
SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK
Donald Vieira
Theodore Wells
SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
OUR CLIENTS HAVE ENDURED SOME OF THE GREATEST LOSSES IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE. THEY HAVE LOST LOVED ONES, THEIR INDEPENDENCE, OR SOMETIMES HOPE. OUR MISSION IS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR RECOVERY WITH THE AIM OF IMPROVING THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. DORIS CHENG DC: Above all else, we want to make sure that we are a good fit for our clients. Do we have the right experience, expertise, and interest? How much can we help the client and how just is the cause? The answers are easy when fault is clear and the client’s loss is deeply sympathetic. The tougher cases, and where we excel, are the cases that take tenacity and technical-scientific expertise to prove fault and win in a meaningful way for our client. LD: Perhaps each of you can discuss a case recently resolved that was significant. RS: In June of 2018, an attorney from San Luis Obispo contacted us to try a difficult personal injury case in San Luis Obispo where his badly injured client had been riding a motorcycle and rear-ended another vehicle on a highway grade. The plaintiff alleged that the general contractor had negligently managed a nearby construction zone that set the stage for the collision itself. The defendants denied any wrongdoing whatsoever and offered nothing whatsoever to settle the case. We agreed to try the case and in August of 2018 obtained a $5.5 million verdict, one of the largest in the county’s history. MK: I recently concluded an obstetrical negligence case for a non-English speaking Hispanic woman who together with her husband had completed her family and sought pregnancy counselling and contraceptive services from our largest statewide HMO. The defendant obstetrician prescribed and inserted an IUD without administering a pregnancy test. The client was pregnant and should not have received the IUD, which could not be retrieved and ultimately caused significant and permanent intrauterine injury to the fetus. This mistake exposed the family and the infant to horrible hardship, and literally millions of dollars in attendant care and medical expenses over the child’s lifetime. In resolving the case we were able to provide the infant with optimal lifetime medical and rehabilitative care and reduce the stress of the parents
by guaranteeing their son would be taken care of even after the parents passed away. DC: I had the privilege of representing a young man who was badly burned in a chemical explosion due to a defective machine used to fabricate semiconductor wafers. We broke through a number of barriers in a tight knit high-tech industry to uncover negligent safety and engineering decisions that affected the lives of everyday workers who use and clean the machines that manufacture luxury goods, such as microwaves and cell phones. We worked with courageous experts who were willing to reveal trade secrets and intellectual property to make their industry safer. Our client had multiple reconstructive surgeries. Even though he will never return to gainful employment, he now has the resources necessary to provide him with full-time care and support. He has the spirit of a champion and continues to pursue as many activities as possible. LD: Could any of you discuss ways in which your practice has changed since earlier in your career? Are there ways in which running a successful personal injury practice is more difficult than before? RS: Obviously, the more seasoned we have become in our careers, the more serious our jobs have become. Though we don’t treat any client differently than another as far as our level of commitment and preparation, there’s a big difference between a client who has suffered an injury valued at $100,000 versus one whose case may be worth $10,000,000. Those who are catastrophically injured are at great risk without the financial and emotional resources to make it from day to day. Our most badly hurt clients are looking upon us to make decisions that will, we hope, bring them a lifetime of security and support. As our experience has grown, more of our cases are comprised of those types of cases. Truthfully, because we have been doing this a long time, and have track
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
257
500
500 records of success, we are privileged to be retained by some of the most damaged in our society. That’s a heady responsibility, but because we have so much experience, we never hesitate. MK: Certainly the most significant change I have seen over the last 40 years has been the rise in the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the pendulum swing on the part of the courts in favor of arbitration versus jury trials. The efforts of business interests and corporate lobbyists to demean the work of jurors and the value of the civil justice system, which began in the 1950s, began to bear fruit in the early ‘80s. And it has only picked up steam since then. The problem of the “vanishing jury trial” is not something that happened by accident. What we see today is the result of a carefully orchestrated public relations plan to limit citizen participation in the justice system. Multinational corporations and big businesses are winning this battle. It would not surprise me if civil jury trials disappear altogether sometime in the next 30 years. DC: One of the most significant changes in the practice of law is the increased use of computer interfaces versus inperson interaction. Our lawyer-to-lawyer, client-to-lawyer, court-to-lawyer interactions are much more reliant upon emails, instant messaging, and even court calls. Deciphering tone, intention and motivation is much more difficult when you are not communicating in person. It is not surprising that civility training is necessary or that case closure takes longer. Today, it takes intentionality to build rapport and trusting relationships with each other, but it’s worth it. We lift up the status of lawyers and the profession when we demonstrate civility and respect for
our judiciary and our fellow advocates. LD: How would each of you describe your style as a trial lawyer? Do you have any specific strategies or lessons when it comes to connecting with jurors? Each of you has a long track record of success – please share any thoughts about what it takes to build the type of record that leads to a Lawdragon 500 distinction or any of your other major awards. RS: My style is pretty straightforward. I am the same person in the courtroom as I try to be outside the courtroom – credible, sincere, genuine, and authentic wrapped inside a sense of humor (mostly self-deprecating). I treat the opposition with respect, especially in front of the jury, and do everything I can to out-prepare them. I listen to my partners with whom I’m trying the case and attempt to infuse a sense of fun into the process so that we don’t all die from stress. Also, lawyers have a reputation for being slick and less than honest so to behave in the opposite manner gives you a huge leg up. Sad, but true. MK: My style is an amalgamation of what I have learned from lawyers I have watched, read about and studied. I would hope that my style is honest, transparent, passionate and energetic. One thing I’ve learned for sure is that jurors do not like to be bored or talked down to. As a result, I try to make my presentations simple, brief, intelligent and focused - avoiding redundancy, or belaboring testimony and making sure to give your jurors credit for being smart and attentive. DC: I hope that I am the same person in court than I am in any other setting. My goal is always to be sincere,
THE PROBLEM OF THE “VANISHING JURY TRIAL” IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT. WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS THE RESULT OF A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN TO LIMIT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND BIG BUSINESSES ARE WINNING THIS BATTLE. MICHAEL KELLY
258
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
500
trustworthy, helpful, attentive, and thoughtful. I respect the attention of jurors and strive to consume their time only with evidence that is meaningful and useful to their deliberation. Additionally, I want to make their jury experience and service worthwhile. That means teaching them something new that will help them see themselves as they relate to my client and judge the defendant in the proper context. LD: Can you go back to earlier in your life and describe how you became interested in having a plaintiffs’ side practice? Did you consider doing another type of law? For example, Richard, did you consider remaining a prosecutor for your career? RS: I never saw my career with Walkup coming. I just knew I wanted to be the best trial lawyer I could possibly be and felt amazingly fortunate to have been hired by the Alameda County District Attorney’s office, then considered the best group of prosecuting trial lawyers in the state. Trying cases is the thing I do best, but outside of a DA or public defender’s office, there aren’t too many places where you can make that happen. So, I loved that job – the camaraderie, the quality, the teamwork. But when Walkup called, I was advised by some lawyers I knew that it was an opportunity I should not deny. They saw the lawyers at Walkup as the best civil trial lawyers in the state. And, they were right. At the end of the day, I do the same thing as I did with the DA’s office: I prosecute cases (only civil instead of criminal), I work with amazing trial lawyers and people, I don’t bill hours, I bear the burden of proof so I get to go first instead of being on the defense and I work on extremely interesting cases where I do justice for deserving clients. So, I never thought I’d be a career prosecutor, but I never imagined I’d land in a place that so ideally suited my strengths. I am forever grateful. MK: I don’t think I ever gave a lot of thought to what kind of practice I would be involved in until I was actually in law school. During law school I had the opportunity to clerk for a plaintiff’s personal injury practice, and got to see firsthand how lawyers could make immediate and positive impacts in people’s lives. I was struck by what an important job it was to make sure that injured people could put food on their table or take care of their families during their disability – and how without skilled personal injury lawyers, and the contingent-fee system, innocent people would suffer needlessly. It was an easy choice for me to stick with an area of the law where real wrongs were corrected, real change was affected, and hard work was rewarded with positive outcomes.
DC: I took a trial advocacy class in law school, and for the first time in law school, I felt at home. I knew then that I wanted to be a trial lawyer. I wanted to use my voice to build a case, support a cause, and achieve justice. One of my professors introduced me to the Walkup firm in my second summer of law school, and I met people who did just that – intelligently and cogently built a case; supported a just cause; and took care of people. That was my practical introduction to achieving justice, and I have loved this practice ever since then. LD: What advice do you have for current law students who might be interested in a personal injury practice? RS: I’m biased, but I always tell folks to go out and cut their teeth trying cases in a PD or DA’s office. Then, when they come on over to the world of civil law, they will have that experience under their belts. Armed with those trial skills, they’ll demonstrate that they’re not afraid to try cases and will default in favor of trial as opposed to the often-easier choice of settlement. MK: I would tell them to go hang out in courtrooms. Meet lawyers who try cases. Ask questions, network, volunteer to work for the lawyers who look like the best they see. Take note of how jurors look when the evidence is presented. Find a position as early as possible in law school that gets them near lawyers who try cases. Network with those lawyers. Volunteer if necessary to get experience. DC: My advice to law students is to travel and read as much as possible. You can only serve people well if you understand the human condition. The human condition comes in many different forms, affected by socioeconomic factors, race, religion, custom, culture, sex. We learn about people and their condition when we meet them and learn their histories. If we can’t even imagine walking in someone else’s shoes, we cannot competently serve them. LD: To take that one step farther, are there certain traits you look for in younger attorneys or potential new hires? RS: Yes, people who don’t just want to try cases, but actually feel the need to do so. That is, when they are chasing their bliss, it is not simply being a lawyer or a litigator or someone who does transactional or tax law, but rather someone who really needs to try cases in order to be fulfilled. They need to be willing to work hard and listen. And they need to have character and integrity. MK: We try to find candidates with empathy, humility, intelligence, and “street smarts.” Because our work involves trials, it’s important that our lawyers have life experience and understand how to communicate with the people who show up for jury duty. And it probably goes without
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
259
500
500 I’M BIASED, BUT I ALWAYS TELL FOLKS TO GO OUT AND CUT THEIR TEETH TRYING CASES IN A PD OR DA’S OFFICE. THEN, WHEN THEY COME ON OVER TO THE WORLD OF CIVIL LAW, THEY WILL HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE UNDER THEIR BELTS. RICHARD SHOENBERGER saying that we want new lawyers to have a sense of fairness, justice and the importance of the civil justice system in protecting the average citizen. DC: I want to work with people who crave knowledge and action, who want to serve our clients, and who will listen and consider different opinions and philosophies. LD: Each of you is very active in terms of public interest and extra-practice activities. Doris, maybe you can talk about your 2019 stint as President of the San Francisco Bar Association. Rich and Mike, you are involved in associations and teaching. Can you speak about this and why your involvement is important and if there are issues that you focus on? RS: I know I can speak for Mike and Doris when I say that teaching has been a perfect outlet for us to give back to a profession that has given us each so much. We know how stressful trying cases can be and how trial work itself is in danger of becoming a lost art. But, trial by jury in many ways sets us apart from autocratic societies and helps keep us free from tyranny. So, our desire to teach is part an effort to boost the confidence of those willing to dare greatly in the courtroom and part a grassroots effort to ensure the vitality of the most important ingredient of our rule of law – trial by jury. Watching young lawyers get the hang of trial advocacy as a byproduct of one’s teaching is immensely satisfying, especially because the students may go out and do some good things of their own for society armed with what we’ve equipped them. Plus, we’re all hams in one way or another and we get to try out our material on unsuspecting students. MK: I have been involved in teaching since 1980. I spent 20 years as an adjunct faculty member at UC Hastings teaching trial advocacy and trial practice. In the early 1980s I started teaching for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which led to teaching opportunities with
260
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
an American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative, and that in turn gave me opportunities to teach in eastern Europe, Great Britain, South America and Asia. My teaching opportunities have provided an opportunity to be a cheerleader for our system of adversarial justice. I believe deeply in the importance of our constitutionally guaranteed rights of trial by jury. Mentoring and teaching and guiding others to be better advocates is an essential requirement for the adversary system to function correctly. There is great satisfaction in seeing less experienced lawyers develop into better advocates through structured programs like NITA training and Bar Association sponsored advocacy training programs. DC: Service is an honor. And it has been exactly that – an honor – to serve as a teacher, speaker, collaborator or leader in any endeavor that promotes trial by jury and the rule of law. I truly believe that the American adversarial justice system is the most fair process for adjudicating civil and criminal disputes. When we share different techniques and methods for advocating justice, we raise the bar for our legal system; we promote a fair and equitable process for helping the people in our society resolve genuine differences of opinion about important rights; and we fortify the belief that we, as a people, deserve ethical and competent representation in a fair forum. I have spent the last five years as a program director for numerous advocacy training through the State Department’s Caribbean Securities Initiative, and we have changed the efficacy of the justice system throughout the Caribbean. As President of the Bar Association of San Francisco, I established three training programs to promote women trial lawyers in the courtroom. The dark reality is that if we do not serve our profession, we surrender its value and the consequences are serious – consider the effects of legislative budget cuts to our courts and our judiciary.
500
Tony West
Steven Williams
UBER SAN FRANCISCO
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
William Whelan
Donna Wilson
CRAVATH NEW YORK
MANATT LOS ANGELES
Alexandra White
Julia Wilson
SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON
ONEJUSTICE SAN FRANCISCO
Conlee Whiteley
Jamie Wine
KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS
LATHAM NEW YORK
Douglas Wigdor
Richard C. Witzel Jr.
WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK
SKADDEN CHICAGO
Beth Wilkinson
Marc Wolinsky
WILKINSON WALSH WASHINGTON, D.C.
WACHTELL NEW YORK
LaShawn Williams
Debra Wong Yang
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON
GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES
Milton Williams
Bruce Yannett
WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK
DEBEVOISE NEW YORK
Shawn Williams
Steven Yerrid
ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO
THE YERRID FIRM TAMPA
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
261
500
500 262
Edward Zaelke
Damien Zoubeck
AKIN GUMP LOS ANGELES
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Taurie Zeitzer
Paul Zumbro
PAUL WEISS NEW YORK
CRAVATH NEW YORK
Laura Zois
Lawrence Zweifach
MILLER & ZOIS BALTIMORE
GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK
LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM
Left to right: Michael J. Willemin, Jeanne M. Christensen, Douglas H. Wigdor, Lawrence M. Pearson, David E. Gottlieb
TOP FIRMS GET TOP VERDICTS. PERIOD. For over 16 years, Wigdor LLP has paved the road to justice on behalf of victims of corporate misconduct at the highest levels. The National Law Journal recently named Wigdor LLP a winner of its 2019 Elite Trial Lawyers Awards in four distinct categories — more than any other firm. It is safe to say that this recognition would not have been possible without the leadership of the Firm’s Founding Partner, Douglas H. Wigdor, who is widely regarded as one of New York's most successful employment litigators. Not only is Mr. Wigdor one of few New York plaintiffs’ employment litigators to receive a ranking in Chambers and Partners, but he was also named to the Law360 2019 Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar list, and was also referred to as "one of New York City's most aggressive employment lawyers" in a feature profile by The New York Times. When it comes to sexual harassment, discrimination and #MeToo, Wigdor LLP has represented victims in some of the most closely watched and discussed cases in recent history. These include multiple victims of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual abuse; the hotel maid in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case; numerous victims of alleged sexual misconduct by their Uber drivers; over 20 victims of alleged discrimination and/or sexual harassment at Fox News; seven female TV journalists in their claims of gender, age and/or pregnancy discrimination against NY1; and many others. It is no wonder, then, that Wigdor LLP was the only plaintiffs’ employment law firm to be recognized in a recent study on the most fearsome litigation firms in the Country. “He just will not be intimidated,” said one high-profile client in a Bloomberg magazine profile of Mr. Wigdor.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
Wigdor LLP fervently advocates for companies to end the practice of forced arbitration in employment cases. These efforts have gained the attention of lawmakers, activists and journalists nationwide. Recently, a bipartisan group of 67 New York State Legislators signed a letter urging Ernst & Young’s Global Chairman to voluntarily release Wigdor LLP’s client from forced arbitration so she could pursue her sexual harassment and gender discrimination case in open court. Due to the Firm's well-respected stature within the legal community, the attorneys at Wigdor LLP possess a rare negotiating power that is unseen by most boutique plaintiffs' firms. As a result, the Firm is able to settle the vast majority of its cases, often before a complaint is ever filed. These confidential settlements total over $1 billion. When they aren't trying cases, Wigdor LLP attorneys are often seen zealously advocating for their clients or being quoted as legal experts in leading local, national and international news media, including MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the BBC, New York Law Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, New York Daily News, Reuters, Bloomberg, TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Law360 and more. The Firm has a dynamic and diversified legal practice that is grounded in the professional experience of the Firm's Partners. This year, Wigdor LLP honors Partners Douglas H. Wigdor and Jeanne M. Christensen, named to the 2019 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America list. Joining them on the 2019 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers list are Partners David E. Gottlieb and Lawrence M. Pearson.
85 Fifth Avenue, Floor 5 New York, NY 10003 212.257.6800 @WigdorLaw | www.wigdorlaw.com