The 2021 Lawdragon Magazine by Lawdragon

F E AT U R I N G T H E 1 9 J U D G E S O F “ B L A C K G I R L M A G I C ”

THE LIONHEARTS

Cover spread from left to right: Deneen Howell, Larry Rogers, Jeannemarie O’Brien, Philip Corboy, Richard Sayles, Sherrilyn Ifill, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Geller, Johnine Barnes, Geoffrey Harrison, Steve Yerrid, Travis Lenkner, Jay Eisenhofer, Kalpana Srinivasan, Andy Pitts. Front cover, from left to right: Judges Ronnisha Bowman, Sharon Burney, Dedra Davis, Tonya Jones, Latosha Payne, Toria Finch, Michelle Moore. Inside cover spread from left to right: Judges Ramona Franklin, Germaine Tanner, Sandra Peake, Linda Marie Dunson, Erica Hughes, Angela GravesHarrington, Shannon Baldwin, Lori Chambers Gray, and LaShawn Williams.

INSIDE CRAVATH’S PRO BONO WORK IN ALABAMA TAYLOR & RING’S DEEP RECORD IN POLICE MISCONDUCT CASES NEW PARADIGMS IN DIVERSITY INITIATIVES THE BEST IN LEGAL CONSULTING & LEGAL FINANCE LAWDRAGON LEGENDS AND HALL OF FAME ADDITIONS

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

Attorney Advertising

Congratulations to all the 2021 Leading Lawyers in America, including Robbins Geller attorneys Aelish Marie Baig, Randall J. Baron, Spencer A. Burkholz, Daniel S. Drosman, Paul J. Geller, Rachel L. Jensen, David W. Mitchell, Darren J. Robbins, Samuel H. Rudman, Shawn A. Williams, and Debra J. Wyman.

rgrdlaw.com | 1-800-449-4900

RECOVERING ASSETS

REFORMING BUSINESS

RESTORING CONFIDENCE

{ CONTENTS }

16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 18 THE LONG RIVER OF JUSTICE Cravath’s nearly five decades of pro bono work in Alabama shows that real change takes perseverance and dedication.

30 DOUBLING DOWN ON DIVERSITY Selendy & Gay seeks a paradigm shift with its new diversity fellowship.

38 LAST RESORT For decades, lawyers at Taylor & Ring have successfully pursued civil claims over police shootings when the criminal side fails.

46 THE FAST RISE OF KELLER LENKNER AS A PRODUCT LIABILITY POWERHOUSE The plaintiffs’ firm has achieved national prominence and secured MDL leadership roles at a record pace.

54 FUNDING THE FUTURE

Validity Finance is matching its passion for access to justice with a new program to promote diversity within the profession.

62 ON THE FRONT LINES Nearly 50 years after its founding, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack remains tireless in the pursuit of accountability.

68 IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE Todd Smith’s love of learning has led to tremendous success in the courtroom, including in complex aviation cases.

74 A NEW FORMATION

On Nov. 6, 2018, Houston area voters chose “Black Girl Magic,” an election that forever changed the courts in Harris County, Texas.

83 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL FINANCE

This group of honorees includes longtime industry veterans from some of the world’s most established funds, as well as upstart financiers. Featuring:

74 4

85 87 91 93 97 101 103

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Cindy Ahn of Longford Capital Laina Hammond of Validity Finance Kirstin Dodge of Nivalion Justin Maleson of Longford Capital Timothy Mayer of Therium Capital Management Emily Slater of Burford Tania Sulan of Omni Bridgeway

2006 – 2021

{ CONTENTS }

111

109 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING

The ascendance of outside professionals as key advisers on some of the most critical issues law firms face globally has been breathtaking. Featuring:

111 Jane Sullivan Roberts of Macrae 117 Deborah Ben-Canaan of Major Lindsey 119 Jennifer Simpson Carr of Furia Rubel 122 Jeffrey Conta of Lippman Jungers 125 Jaquelyn Knight of Major Lindsey 129 Ryan McSharry of Infinite Global 131 Melinda Wallman of Macrae 136 Nick Pournader of P&C Global 139 Patty Morrissy of Morrissy Legal Search

143 THE HALL OF FAME

These lawyers are among the most acclaimed of their generation, having led America’s firms to unprecedented heights, achieved civil rights advances and changed our world for the better. Featuring:

146 James Bostwick of Bostwick & Peterson 152 Frank Branson of The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson 158 Michael Ciresi of Ciresi Conlin 162 Ty Cobb of Law Offices of Ty Cobb 174 John DeGroote of DeGroote Partners 182 Donald Godwin of Godwin Bowman 188 Stuart Grossman of Grossman Roth 192 Skip Keesal of Keesal Young 196 Michael Kelly of Walkup Melodia 200 Jon Lindsey of Major Lindsey 204 Kathleen Flynn Peterson of Ciresi Conlin 210 Michael Sitrick of Sitrick & Company

162

215 THE LEGENDS

The latest group of lawyers to have made the Lawdragon 500 for a tenth time exhibit a sustained excellence and endurance that is truly inspirational.

215 224

224 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA

The judges of “Black Girl Magic” headline a Lawdragon 500 guide that is the most inclusive and inspiring to date. Featuring:

224 232 240 248 254 260 268 274 278 286 294 302

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Angela Graves-Harrington of Harris County Courts Michael Holmes of Vinson & Elkins Brian Stekloff of Wilkinson Stekloff Erica Hughes of Harris County Courts Peter Prieto of Podhurst Orseck Steven Molo of MoloLamken Jenny Martinez of Munck Wilson Matthew Schwartz of Boies Schiller Toria J. Finch of Harris County Courts Robin Cohen of Cohen Ziffer Gary Bornstein and Kevin Orsini of Cravath Shannon Baldwin of Harris County Courts

RISK-TAKERS | RELENTLESS | REVOLUTIONARY | RECOGNIZED A nationally recognized trial boutique that prosecutes high-stakes, complex business litigation on a success-fee basis, Reid Collins has recovered billions of dollars for our clients. We are proud to congratulate three of our partners on being named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Eric D. Madden | William T. “Bill” Reid IV | Lisa S. Tsai To find out more about why sophisticated business plaintiffs choose Reid Collins, visit our website.

Austin | Dallas | New York | Washington, D.C. | Wilmington

R e i d Co l l i n s & Ts a i LLP w w w.r e id col l ins.co m

XXX

Boies Boies Schiller Schiller Flexner Flexner is aisfirm a firm of internationally of internationally recognized recognized trial trial lawyers, lawyers, crisis crisis managers, managers, andand strategic strategic advisers advisers known known forfor ourour creative, creative, aggressive, aggressive, andand efficient efficient pursuit pursuit of of successful successful outcomes outcomes forfor ourour clients. clients. Our Our attorneys attorneys have have an an established established track track record record of of taking taking onon andand winning winning complex, complex, groundbreaking, groundbreaking, andand cross-border cross-border matters matters in in diverse diverse circumstances circumstances andand industries. industries. From From thethe thorniest, thorniest, most most high-stakes high-stakes matters matters to straightforward to straightforward business business disputes, disputes, wewe have have a knack a knack forfor identifying identifying thethe strongest strongest arguments, arguments, understanding understanding thethe benefits benefits of of each, each, andand determining determining when when andand how how to to deploy deploy them them in in a case. a case. With Withoffices officeslocated locatedthroughout throughoutthetheUnited UnitedStates, States,London London andand Milan, Milan, wewe operate operate as as oneone firm firm with with a seamless a seamless approach approach to to building building thethe most most skillful skillful andand cost-effective cost-effective team team possible possible forfor every every matter. matter.

New New York York • Albany • Albany • Armonk • Armonk • Fort • Fort Lauderdale Lauderdale • Hollywood • Hollywood • Las • Las Vegas Vegas • London • London LosLos Angeles Angeles • Miami • Miami • Milan • Milan • San • San Francisco Francisco • Washington, • Washington, D.C.D.C. • www.bsfllp.com • www.bsfllp.com

David David Boies Boies Chairman Chairman Lawdragon Lawdragon HallHall of Fame of Fame

Jonathan Jonathan Schiller Schiller Managing Managing Partner Partner Lawdragon Lawdragon HallHall of Fame of Fame

Stephen Stephen Zack Zack Partner Partner Lawdragon Lawdragon HallHall of Fame of Fame

Hamish Hume Hamish Hume Partner Partner

Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley Managing Partner Managing Partner

Matthew Schwartz Matthew Schwartz Managing Partner Managing Partner

Stuart Singer Stuart Singer Partner Partner

Vickery AlanAlan Vickery Managing Partner Managing Partner

We Wecongratulate congratulateour ourLawdragons Lawdragons onontheir theirachievements achievements

Issue 24 LAWDRAGON INC. PUBLISHER/CHIEF

305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013

EXECUTIVE OFFICER K atrina D ewey katrina @ lawdragon . com

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all

J ohn R yan

solicitation, reprint and plaque requests from services

john @ lawdragon . com

that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” email. These are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS

purchase any desired services from Carlton Dyce at

DEVELOPMENT AND SALES

carlton@lawdragon.com.

C arlton D yce carlton @ lawdragon . com

ART DIRECTOR S tephanie B lackman sb @ blackmandesign . net

SENIOR EDITORS J ames L angford james @ lawdragon . com

For editorial inquires or to pitch stories, contact John Ryan at john@lawdragon.com. For reprints or other promotional materials, contact

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS E mily J ackoway

Carlton Dyce at carlton@lawdragon.com.

E milyjackoway @ lawdragon . com

You can also purchase products at the Lawdragon

A lison P reece

Shop at www.lawdragon.com/lawdragon-shop.

A lison @ lawdragon . com A my C arroll EDITORIAL ASSISTANT M ichelle F ox michelle @ lawdragon . com

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY L aura B arisonzi , A my C antrell , Nick Coleman, Gregory Cowley, Rory Earnshaw, G regg E llman , G reg E ndries , R obyn R ue G raham , L iz H amilton , H elen J one S, K aycee J oubert , J essica K aminski , E li M eier K aplan , C allie L ipkin , D avid L ubarsky , K ayla M ayhood , M ichelle N olan , M ichael P aras , J osh R itchie , F elix S anchez , A nnie T ritt , P eter V idor , H ugh W illiams , A lexander Z oltai P rinted in C anad A

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“one of the nation’s greatest plaintiff lawyers” —LAWDRAGON

“a dealmaker” —CHAMBERS USA

CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER

A founding partner of Seeger Weiss LLP, Christopher A. Seeger has led some of the most complex, groundbreaking, and high-profile litigations in the U.S., at both the state and federal level, the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, which the Washington Post called “the

NEW JERSEY 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660

NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

largest federal court case in U.S. history”; 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, which Reuters called “the largest multidistrict litigation in history”; the ongoing “Dieselgate” scandal; and the history-making Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation.

PENNSYLVANIA 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102

seegerweiss.com

MASSACHUSETTS 1280 Centre Street Newton, MA 02459

ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB(ILACK EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEYS

Helping law firms ignite their growth.

Congratulations to all our InterAction Clients recognized as a Lawdragon Leading Lawyer

InterAction - proud to partner with the leading global law firms: 75% of Am Law 100

74% of Global Top 100 Law Firms

Trusted for growth across 5 continents

Learn why we have continued to evolve as legal’s leading CRM for almost 30 years - visit www.interaction.com

Jodi Avergun

Richard Brand

Karen Dyer

Nicholas Gravante

Ellen Holloman

Philip Iovieno

Sean O’Shea

Patrick Quinn

Lary Stromfeld

{

}

A LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR

ELEBRATING OUR 15TH YEAR AS A BUSINESS AND PUTTING OUT LAST YEAR’S ANNIVERSARY ISSUE DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC WAS IMMENSELY CHALLENGING BUT ALSO UNIQUELY REWARDING. WE CAN SAY MUCH THE SAME ABOUT PUTTING OUT OUR SWEET 16 ISSUE IN WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE NEW NORMAL – A LINGERING UNCERTAINTY THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS ISSUE ON ITS WAY TO THE PRINTER. What’s comforting about the mix of topics this year is seeing the throughlines from our earliest days as a legal affairs content producer. At least one certainty each year is the prominence and necessity of excellent legal advocacy in any generation’s most pressing issues. We see that Taylor & Ring has been litigating for police accountability since the days of Rodney King, and that Cravath’s work for racial equality goes back to the 1970s. Several of our Lawdragon 500 features highlight the work of lawyers who have been operating at the most elite end of the profession for decades. As always in our magazine, we honor those who fight for social justice and the underdog as well as those who represent the Goliaths in courtrooms and boardrooms. But the changes over the past several years – the turn to a new and more diverse generation of legal talent – feels more permanent now, a culminating moment in a trend that Lawdragon has pushed forward in legal media. In some ways, this moment is best expressed by our expanded Hall of Fame section, with a wide array of features on new and past members of the guide. That so many of these titans – many of them as busy as ever (or close to) – have been supplanted on the Lawdragon 500 by newer talent is telling of both the glory of the past and the promise of the future. Nowhere is the new era better reflected than in the judiciary of Harris County, Texas, the heroes of what has affectionately been called “Black Girl Magic” – the 19 judges elected to seats in the county in 2018. (Tragically, one of those judges, Cassandra Hollemon, died in February 2019.) Our feature and the accompanying profiles have been in the works for nearly three years. The stories of these new judges are not only inspiring, they also show that better days are already here – just ask some of the less privileged individuals who have passed through their courtrooms. Now, more than ever, it is comforting to know that those who lead and judge have heart and humility in addition to the legal talent that America has always had in abundance.

K AT R I N A D E W E Y Publisher and CEO katrina@lawdragon.com

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

J O H N R YA N Editor-in-Chief john@lawdragon.com

“It’s a go-to team for high-stakes litigation.” — CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS

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 LONG RIVER OF JUSTICE Cravath’s nearly five decades of pro bono work in Alabama shows that real change takes perseverance and dedication. BY KATRINA DEWEY

ustice is rarely fast and never easy. Real change and accountability take perseverance, dedication.

Damaris Hernández knows that all too well, not just as a child of Brooklyn and Puerto Rican migrants, but as a lawyer who ran the last lap of Cravath’s four-decade battle to meaningfully integrate the police, firefighter and other workplaces in Birmingham, Ala.

“I became a lawyer to help people. So much of the pro bono work my firm does isn’t the type that’s easy and quick. It’s pro bono that’s highly effective, but it takes time,” says Hernández of the effort which saw the firm expend 100,000 hours including work from 150 lawyers and paralegals on a lawsuit that commenced in 1974 and which she concluded on Dec. 21, 2020. What the firm achieved is as remarkable as the journey. The new framework for fair hiring in Birmingham and the surrounding Jefferson County created opportunities for tens of thousands, including Annetta Nunn, who would go on to become the first female African American police chief of Birmingham in 2003, leading the force run 40 years earlier by the infamous Bull Connor.

PHOTO: BETTMANN / GETTY IMAGES (1963)

unn was four-years old on Sept. 15, 1963, when racists bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church and killed four girls readying for Sunday School: 14-year-old Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley and Carole Robertson, and 11-yearold Carol Denise McNair. The bombers targeted the church not just because their hearts brimmed with hatred, but also because civil rights activists had used it as an organizing site for a campaign that included students. A walk of just seven blocks or so from Birmingham’s City Hall to the 16th Street Baptist Church was to enter a different world, a home to African American residents and congregants who were relegated to “colored” lunch counters, drinking fountains, bus sections. In April of that year, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” decrying segregation in the city, and the counsel offered by some fellow clergymen to give the city’s new leadership time. That new leadership was led by Albert Boutwell, who earlier that month had won a runoff for Mayor against Connor, a fellow segregationist and violent authoritarian who served as Commissioner of Public Safety and oversaw the firefighter and police departments. “We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. “My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.” King’s letter is an enduring legacy of the cataclysmic year that saw Alabama Governor George Wallace resist integration of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, just 55 miles away; the assassination of voting rights activist Medgar Evers on June 11 in Jackson, Miss.; the March on Washington in August; and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November. In the midst of the maelstrom, on June 24, the president, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Johnson brought 244 leading lawyers to the White House to enlist the private 20

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

bar to advocate for civil rights. They became the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. Rowan D. Wilson was just 2 ½-years old out in Pomona, Calif., when King wrote his letter. His childhood was spent in Berkeley, Calif., and he would graduate from Harvard and Harvard Law School in 1984 on his way to becoming the first African American partner at Cravath. “It was referred to as Bombingham,” says Wilson, who started working on the case in 1989 and led the firm’s effort until he was appointed Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 2017. “When the lawsuits were filed in 1974, there was not a single African American or woman firefighter or police officer among a force of more than a thousand. And when you looked at who occupied the other jobs throughout the city and the county, and the various municipalities within the county, every job that paid anything, every supervisory job, was somebody who was white, almost always, a white man.” The Jefferson County laundry, for instance, employed approximately 55 African American women. The laundry had one white male employee, and he was the boss. That was typical of the segregated workforce, divided between a “classified service” – better-paying jobs with civil service protections and benefits – and an “unclassified service” that paid minimum wage and provided no job protections. A road crew was comprised of engineers, truck drivers and pavers, who held the classified jobs, and those who carried material and debris, who were unclassified. “They were almost all Black men,” says Wilson. “If sharecroppers were one step removed from slavery, the state of public employment in Jefferson County in the 1960s was two steps removed.” 1963 laid bare a change gonna come, no matter where you sat alongside the waters flowing by. And come it did, fusing decades of indignities in a resolve to take on the government in court. Birmingham was, of course, one of many municipalities where legal action was pursued seeking equality in employment, education and the basic dignities of life. But the sweep of an effort initiated in 1974 by the first Black member of the Birmingham Bar Association and concluded by a Latina lawyer from New York City in 2020 deserves a moment. For what it took. For what we can do together. Oh yes it will.

On January 4, 1974, U.W. Clemon of Birmingham’s Adams, Baker & Clemon signed his name to a mighty spring from which that river would flow: Ensley Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Donald Nixon; William Moss; Alvin Mahaffey Jr.; Walter R. Ball v. George Seibels, individually and as Mayor of the City of Birmingham, Alabama; City of Birmingham, Alabama, a municipal corporation; Hiram Y. McKinney, Henry P. Johnson and James Y. Johnson individually and as members of the Jefferson County Personnel Board; Joseph Curtin individually and as Personnel Director of the Jefferson County Personnel Board; [and] Jefferson County Personnel Board. Clemon and his law partners were all sons of Alabama, yet none had been permitted to attend law school in the state because they were African American. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Swett v. Painter that states could not reject a law school applicant based on race. States with segregated law schools were given three options: create a law school for Black students that was fully equivalent to the white one; admit Black students to the existing law school; or pay to send Black law students to an out-of-state law school that would take them. Unsurprisingly, Alabama chose the latter option. The son of sharecroppers, Clemon attended Columbia Law School (paid by Alabama), from which he graduated in 1968 and went to work for the NAACP in New York before returning to Alabama. Oscar Adams had been a member of the Central Committee that planned demonstrations during the Birmingham Campaign of 1963, before becoming the first Black member admitted to the Birmingham bar in 1966. He had graduated from Howard Law School in 1947 and would go on to become the first African American Alabama Supreme Court Justice, while Clemon in 1974 became one of the first two African Americans elected to the Alabama Senate since Reconstruction before becoming a federal judge. In 1975, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the lawsuit, bringing its might under Attorney General Edward H. Levi and President Gerald Ford. It filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of African Americans and women denied fair employment opportunities by Jefferson County,

Birmingham, numerous other municipalities and their leaders as public employers. “The defendant public employers have followed a policy of hiring and assigning their employees on the basis of race, color and sex, with Black and female employees being hired for and assigned to the less desirable and generally lower-paying jobs with the least opportunity for advancement and with white male employees being hired for and assigned to the more desirable and generally higher-paying jobs with the greatest opportunity for advancement,” the Justice Department alleged in the first of numerous claims making a federal case on behalf of those too long knocked down on their knees. Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr., appointed by President Nixon, was assigned the cases. A Birmingham native and military veteran, he endured death threats in the ‘70s for ordering busing to integrate Birmingham schools. Pointer held a series of trials assessing the hiring and promotion practices of the Birmingham Personnel Board and ruled it had discriminated against African Americans and women in a range of jobs. And the river flows on. In 1979, Birmingham elected its first African American Mayor, Richard Arrington, who would lead the city until 1999. Arrington immediately settled the litigation against the City of Birmingham through a consent decree. The reconstituted Personnel Board followed suit agreeing to specific goals and procedures for hiring, as did other jurisdictions including the County. By the end of 1982, Judge Pointer had approved a series of proposed consent decrees ordering the hiring and advancement of African Americans and women to compensate for widespread past discrimination. The thing about a river is this: It bends and turns, and rarely flows straight. Placid carriage can turn ugly just around the bend. And so sailed the tugboat U.S. v. Jefferson County. Naturally, the proposed decree brought with it a notice and comment period, allowing objectors to appear at a hearing. Clouds appeared on the horizon as several white City employees objected and a group of white male firefighters claiming the decrees unfairly benefitted lesser qualified Black firefighters moved to intervene. Pointer denied their intervention and entered the City consent decree, after which the County, Personnel Board and other municipalities also entered into decrees. Denied intervention, the white firefighters filed a

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

separate reverse discrimination lawsuit challenging the City decree. Thunder came with the election of President Ronald Reagan, which brought the Justice Department under the leadership of Attorney General Ed Meese and Civil Rights chief William Bradford Reynolds. As plaintiff, the Justice Department had previously signed the consent decrees against Alabama and the municipalities. And while the decree obligated the United States to defend any attack on its lawfulness, the Justice Department now claimed implementation of the new hiring protocols was unlawful. Brother, help me please. “Is Tom Barr available?” From the heart of Washington, D.C., the call went forth to the head of litigation at Cravath, then as now among the nation’s most powerful law firms. The Lawyers’ Committee was on the line. Barr’s mentor, Bruce Bromley, had been among the lawyers assembled at the White House in 1963, and Barr himself had risen from his Kansas City roots through the Marine Corps to become the go-to trial lawyer for the biggest-ticket trials. He rang the rising star Bob Joffe, who had become partner in 1975 and made a name for himself representing Time Inc. Within Cravath, he was also known for his dedication to civil rights, having spent two years in Malawi, for instance, working for the Ministry of Justice setting up local courts and heading Harvard’s Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Law Review as a student. Joffe won approval to represent the Alabama plaintiffs and turned the firm’s focus to the storm ahead – one that would persist through the rest of his career, including his ascent to presiding partner in 1997 and early death at the age of 66 in 2010. The lawsuit filed by the white male firefighters, represented by Birmingham lawyer Raymond Fitzpatrick, fashioned what was then the relatively new claim of “reverse discrimination” – that the consent decrees designed to address the sins of the past were unlawfully impeding the futures of the white male firefighters. As any sailor – or passenger – knows, the story of how the boat gets where it’s going is rarely as interesting as the destination except to those charged with navigating the tides and shoals. The journey started by Joffe would build – and be joined by legions of other lawyers from his firm, the Justice Department, jurists and the people of Jefferson County themselves – and change countless lives. That it would take four decades no one would know, through the turbulent reverse discrimination battles 22

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

including a U.S. Supreme Court decision, from 19831989; steady implementation of the consent decrees and the case against the County from roughly 19902013; and the final enforcement of the decrees which concluded last year. They were able to carry on. Joffe helmed the first phase, working with a team of associates in Alabama contesting the reverse discrimination claims through the 11th Circuit and to his only U.S. Supreme Court argument. In June 1989, in a decision by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court held 5-4 in Martin v. Wilks that the white firefighters were not bound by Judge Pointer’s consent decrees because they had not been parties to the litigation. The legal theory is collateral estoppel and for those who only recently endured the legal jargon of the transition from Obama to Trump, the prior shift from Carter to Reagan was a similar moment of “what just happened?” Joffe tapped Wilson, then an associate, to lead the effort to turn back the reverse discrimination claims. Cravath began working on legislation to undo Martin, which ended up forming part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They also moved to certify a parallel class of African American women, employees and prospective employees alongside the reverse discrimination firefighters. In 1994 – 20 years after it was filed - an 11th Circuit panel took note of the egregious amount of time that had passed in Ensley Branch NAACP v. Seibels. The existing consent decrees were an unlawful “badge of shame” that the personnel board and the city had used as a crutch, the court noted, ordering the degrees to be modified to develop lawful selection procedures. But speed remained a stranger. Valid tests needed to be created and the Personnel Board’s attention captured. Judge Pointer retired in 2000 and was replaced by Judge C. Lynwood Smith of Huntsville, who sensibly took offense at the lethargic pace of progress. In 2002, he set a trial date over one of the case’s many tributaries – a dispute over testing protocols for Sheriff Sergeants – and set a trial date two months away. Although both Cravath and the Justice Department objected to the selection procedure as discriminatory, without notice the Justice Department withdrew its challenge just 10 days before trial. And the night before opening statements, the Personnel Board’s lead lawyer, Charlie Waldrep of Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick, tapped on the door of Cravath’s makeshift Birmingham outpost.

“I can’t prove my case,” Waldrep said. “What do you want?” Now that is a crazy question to ask to a trial lawyer, and Wilson was ready with an answer. First, he wanted the lawyer to acknowledge the concession to the judge. Second, the County needed to pick up the tab for expert fees. And third? The Personnel Board had to create a fair and workable system. Done, done and done. The next morning, lawyers congregated in a courtroom, as lawyers will do. And, true to his word, Waldrep stood up and said, “I can’t prove my case.” Wilson acknowledged the deal to an angry Judge Smith – who threatened to hold the Personnel Board in contempt. Wilson asked for and got five months to build a record on which he could rely to seek such an order. Cravath built a record that was more like a Springsteen catalog, filled with tales of working people just getting by. Turns out many of the Personnel Board employees tasked with creating valid employment tests had no relevant background – in one case, a degree in English, in another, work at Taco Bell. Also, the leaders of the Board had not read the consent decree; one Personnel Board leader testified that he hadn’t been doing his job, and couldn’t, really. He quit shortly after. To the surprise of no one, Judge Smith held the Personnel Board in contempt and appointed a Receiver to bring it into compliance and a monitor to report on its progress. For the next five years, Cravath worked with the Receiver on very tight court-determined deadlines to develop and vet lawful selection procedures for the more than 600 different types of jobs under the Personnel Board’s purview. “We spent thousands of hours each year that the Receiver was in place – many times objecting to portions of tests as they were developed, and working with our expert Industrial/Organizational Psychologists to both critique and help in that development,” says Wilson. While the outcome of lawyering can produce bold headlines, it is more often in the fine print that true change comes. And Cravath’s work parsing the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures into a workable template for Birmingham, Ala., is a sterling illustration. The guidelines as well as federal law require that if a selection procedure produces adverse impact based on a protected classification such as race or gender reasonable efforts must be made to minimize that impact while not degrading the validity of the test. The tests in 24

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

place had two basic types of flaws, according to Wilson. First, they tested for issues unrelated to the job, such as asking prospective truck drivers how to replace a water pump. Second, they tested by a method that would produce an adverse impact, when there were alternatives that would not, such as presenting questions orally and allowing work simulation or oral response instead of just written. “In some cases, elimination of tests altogether and a reliance on minimum qualifications and prior experience was all that was needed,” says Wilson. “For example, holding a commercial driver’s license and 3 years’ experience driving a truck full time with a clean driving record proved better proof of job ability than passing a written test about how to drive a truck.” The Personnel Board built a state-of-the-art assessment center, where candidates could be evaluated using video for both questions and answers. Videotaping the oral answers also allowed rescoring of results where evaluators differed sharply on a candidate’s performance. “It was only when the Board had in place lawful selection procedures that we were able to turn to the County,” says Wilson. “Where the Board had been sending largely all-white, all-male lists to the County and other employers, it would have been hard for us to prove that the County itself was not complying with its decree. It was only once the Board’s lists of qualified candidates were nondiscriminatory, and we had a bit of a track record of how the County was hiring and promoting from those lists, that we had the data we needed to prove our case.” When Cravath commenced discovery of county hiring procedures, the county responded that it was working on creating a structured interview process. According to Wilson, in reality it was asking truck driver supervisors, for example, to construct the questions and answers for the people they were interviewing and scoring. Questions were being formulated that were unrelated to the jobs, scoring was inconsistent from candidate to candidate, and certain candidates were given the answers in advance. The Roads and Transportation department, for example, was hiring a truck driver. And the department head selected a 19-year old white man instead of an African American man who had been driving garbage trucks for 15 or 20 years. When he was asked, “Well, why did you do that?” he responded, “The kid’s dad and I live on the same block and I’ve known the kid since he was born. If he ever gets out of line, all I have to do is call his dad.”

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC salutes this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America and congratulates our own honorees: Benjamin Brown Michael Dolce Agnieszka Fryszman Kalpana Kotagal Leslie Kroeger Theodore Leopold Betsy Miller Victoria Nugent Julie Goldsmith Reiser Sharon Robertson Joseph Sellers Daniel Small Steven Toll (Hall of Fame) 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

The case against the county was largely developed by Kristy Greenberg, then a very junior Cravath associate who is now the deputy chief in charge of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York. She spent well over a year in Alabama, taking 70 or more depositions, faced off with two Jefferson County attorneys. She was belittled and ignored. “And she just focused on what she was doing and took deposition after deposition after deposition and assembled it into a massive order of proof,” Wilson says. Job by job, she threaded through all the evidence from depositions, exhibits and other documents to create a remarkable record of, essentially, bad faith. That record formed the backbone of the case against the county when trial commenced in 2009. When it resumed after a hiatus in December 2012, Wilson and retired partner Tom Rafferty included Lauren Rosenberg, then a very junior associate, and former associate Rachel Fritzler at counsel table. Rosenberg had summered at Cravath in 2010 and joined in 2011 after graduating from Columbia Law School. “Our firm prides itself on staffing cases leanly, which is to the benefit of clients as long as your lawyers are bringing the skill and commitment needed for the work,” says Rosenberg of the corps of Wilson, Fritzler, Tom Rafferty, and herself who split up roughly 15 witnesses. “I had worked at Cravath for just over a year, so the ability to examine and cross-examine witnesses in a trial of this importance was obviously exhilarating, incredibly rewarding and showed how much [Wilson] trusted us.” The county relied on its intent to comply with the decree, drawing a line between what happened in the past and the current administration. “We demonstrated that the County’s conduct since the election of new commissioners still did not demonstrate reasonable steps to come into compliance with the decree – they made critical decisions without even considering the decree or the effects those decisions would have on the county’s workforce,” says Rosenberg. For example, when the county filed for bankruptcy, it laid off employees. But it did not consider how the layoffs would affect class members. “They took a last in, first out approach. So the recent hires of women and African Americans were then the first to be laid off. The County conceded that it had an adverse impact,” says Rosenberg. Adds Wilson, the County itself had done an analysis that showed its planned workforce reduction would operate more 26

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

severely against women and African Americans. “But it went ahead anyway, without consideration of its obligations under the decree,” he says. Class members testified to being passed over for promotions that were given to family or friends of supervisors. “We developed close relationships with several of these witnesses,” says Rosenberg, impressed at how much time the class members were willing to spend in a case where damages were not on the table. “Obviously they hoped that it would improve the conditions for themselves, but they were focused on improving the conditions generally so that others would not endure the discrimination that they had experienced.” In August 2013, Judge Smith held Jefferson County in contempt and appointed a Receiver to oversee all hiring and employment activities, and to develop non-discriminatory hiring protocols. It’s been a long, long time coming. Hernández was a reluctant recruit to Cravath when she joined in 2007. Her parents ran a bodega together, when her father suddenly passed away during her senior year in high school. While a sophomore in Cambridge, her Mom lost the bodega and Hernández took leave for two years before moving the family to Cambridge two years later. When she interviewed with Cravath’s then-presiding partner Evan Chesler – who succeeded Joffe as presiding partner – she figured she was assessing who the opponent would be when she went off to save the world. And the boat was able to carry on. When Wilson was appointed to the bench, he tapped Hernández to bring Cravath’s four-decade journey home. “I remember the first day I went to court and met Judge Smith. He explained how he got this case from Judge Pointer, and that he was optimistically hopeful to see the case come to an end in 18 months. He said, ‘It’s been more than 18 years and I’m still here, Ms. Hernández. I hope you can resolve this case before I die.’ I was able to do that.” Hernández followed the footsteps of “two legal giants who had worked on it. And Wilson had already gotten the other three defendants into compliance. So it was daunting. I was humbled. I was excited but I didn’t want to mess it up,” she says. In 2017 at his final hearing, Wilson addressed a packed courtroom, including Hernández on her first visit to Alabama. He went through the history of the

LEADERS IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE

for victims of catastrophic injury and wrongful death

MORE THAN $2 BILLION IN SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS MORE THAN 100 SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS THAT EXCEED $1 MILLION COMBINED TRIAL EXPERIENCE OF MORE THAN 60 YEARS PRACTICE AREAS

Wrongful Death | Medical Malpractice | Brain Injury | Aviation | Class Actions | Product and Drug Liability | Catastrophic Injury | Trucking Accidents • $1.55 billion Settlement – Takata air bag litigation, largest U.S. auto-related recall in history – co-lead counsel • $93 million Settlement – International airplane crash near Amsterdam – co-counsel with Kreindler & Kreindler of New York • $19 million Verdict – Truck collision, wrongful death of 29-year-old tow truck driver • $8 million Settlement – Helicopter crash resulting in death of pilot, reconstruction/product liability case

• $10 million Settlement – Pharmaceutical adverse reaction resulting in victim’s blindness • $20 million Settlement – Medical malpractice – college student suffered severe brain damage while undergoing heart surgery • $18.5 million Settlement – Female working as an “extra” during the filming of a car crash stunt for the movie, “Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon,” suffered traumatic brain injury • $17.6 million Verdict – Financial malpractice and accounting error yields record verdict

EXPERIENCE MATTERS. SMITH LaCIEN LLP 70 W Madison Ste. 2250 Chicago, IL 60602 | (312) 509-8900 www.smithlacien.com | info@smithlacien.com

case with a slide presentation. “And then the last slide I have in there is a giant picture of Damaris. And most of the audience were our clients – women and African Americans whom I’d known for a decade or two – who didn’t know that I was leaving. And I said, ‘I’m leaving, but you’re in good hands.’” “I wasn’t even sitting at counsel table,” says Hernández. “And when he says big, it was like a full-blown slide. When I get up to introduce myself, the judge says, ‘Welcome Ms. Hernández. You know you have some big shoes to fill?’ “That’s the first thing he ever says to me. And I sit there thinking to myself, ‘Don’t I know it. And I’m only a size seven.’” Getting the boat to shore entailed a new receiver for the Personnel Board who could inspire confidence there would be progress and change. “Tone from the top is what matters. And we found that in the past, it was the people at the top that were damaging our plaintiffs, our clients,” says Hernández. In May 2018, the parties jointly submitted a plan to transition authority from the receiver back to Jefferson County. The court adopted the plan in June 2018 and terminated the receivership. A Monitor continued while the County proved it could operate without federal oversight. “We were still around, but they took control of HR,” says Hernández. And there were hiccups, including termination of an HR director for violating selection procedures. “She promoted someone who was less qualified because one of the directors had asked her to do it. So we had taken one step forward, two steps back.” In 2019, having seen the County respond by firing the director, the Judge issued an order to show cause why the decree should not be terminated. Surprised, Hernández made a submission asking to at least wait until a new HR director was onboarded and fully aware of “the history of Jefferson County, the mandate of the decree, how the county works,” she says. After one last legal kerfuffle over an anonymous email alleging a new act of nepotism the judge said, “Okay, Ms. Hernández, look, they practically [resolved] this themselves. It’s already been four years since you came on this case. Can we get it done?” And get it done she did. With a cast of hundreds from one of America’s iconic law firms working on behalf of tens of thousands of workers in Alabama who just wanted a fair shot at a good job. 28

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

On December 21, 2020, amidst a pandemic, the decree was terminated. “It feels like my colleagues before me ran the marathon and then I just stood right in front of the finish line and their unwavering stride and momentum pushed me over,” she says. Today, the municipalities, county and City of Birmingham employ women and African Americans in far greater numbers. And, in perhaps a look forward, research data on demographics of Birmingham police departments in December 2021 focus far more on the racial breakdown of arrests and other acts of violence or detention than the composition of the force. In June, Cravath donated $6M to the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, the Equal Justice Initiative, EJI’s Legacy Museum, Fisk University and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The fees were awarded to Cravath for its four-decade journey on the case. The firm had previously donated $1.8M to the Lawyers’ Committee that it had recovered from the Personnel Board, City and Sheriff. “As we reflect on the culmination of four decades of effort to make real the promise of civil rights reforms in Jefferson County, Ala., we feel privileged to carry forward that commitment by supporting the work of each of these remarkable organizations,” says Faiza J. Saeed, Cravath’s Presiding Partner. “Things have changed,” says Wilson. “The bombings would be unthinkable now. And that’s within my lifetime. And I wouldn’t say it’s a result of this case. But did this case help move that along to some degree? I would say yes, because women and African Americans can get better paying jobs and afford somewhat better houses and all the other things that come with having a reliable and somewhat improved income and status. “Those things end up helping to change a community. It doesn’t happen overnight.” In 1996, Nunn wrote to Joffe, thanking him for coming to Alabama and handling the litigation because without the firm, she would never have been appointed the first African American woman Chief of Police in Birmingham, Ala. “This has been the most rewarding work of my career,” says Hernández. “It just made me proud to be a Cravath partner.” Oh yes it will.

We are skilled investigators in factual research. Facts are at the foundation of almost every legal matter. You require responsive, experienced experts who can successfully reconstruct the historical fact record and respond to research and analytical requests with efficiency and discretion. We are experts in historical research and analysis and our knowledge spans multiple subject matters and topics. We pride ourselves on delivering insight and perspective on the most difficult factual research questions. We have unsurpassed knowledge of federal, state, and local records systems and expertise conducting research around the globe in a wide variety of archives, libraries, government offices, and private record collections.

HAI provides a variety of research and analysis services including: • FOIA and FOIL Professional Services • Regulatory Compliance Research • Crisis Management Support • Global Research Investigations • Complex Litigation Support • Expert Testimony and Rule 30(b)(6) Representatives

Contact HAI about your legal and analysis project needs 301.279.9697 | lawdragon@historyassociates.com

1300+ historical research investigation projects successfully completed

$300M recovered in CERCLA response costs from federal government

600+ forensic environmental investigations related to CERCLA/Superfund cost recovery

DOUBLING DOWN ON

Diversity Selendy & Gay Seeks a Paradigm Shift with New Fellowship

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

ince opening its doors almost four years ago, Selendy & Gay has exemplified its commitment to a new level of diversity in

elite law practice. Starting out with ten world-class lawyers operating out of an apartment in Manhattan, the firm now

boasts 50 attorneys in its Midtown office. They’ve achieved abun-

dant success on both defendant- and plaintiff-side matters, ranging

from financial services litigation to securities and trade secrets cases. But the firm’s core principle remains the same from its founding: a

commitment to winning cases through innovation, mentorship and inclusivity.

PORTRAIT PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE FIRM.

The firm is already considerably more diverse than many of its peers. Fifty percent of the firm’s equity partners are women, and more than 22 percent of its attorneys identify as LGBTQ+ (compared to an average of just 2.5 percent across Big Law firms). The team nevertheless refuses to rest on its laurels; instead, they are seeking out ways to increase diversity in areas where it may be lacking – which, first and foremost, means bringing on more first-generation lawyers and attorneys of color. To encourage that shift, the firm recently announced the launch of their new diversity-centered fellowship program. The fellowship aims to hire and foster underrepresented lawyers, striving to create a more equitable legal system that reflects the society in which these lawyers practice.

on the recruiting stage with the focus on a monetary incentive, which, one could argue, is buying diversity. We wanted instead to think about how to provide long-term support and professional development for people to unlock their potential as lawyers.”

The fellowship will be open to 2Ls, 3Ls and lateral associates who are racially diverse, first-generation college students, or from economically-disadvantaged backgrounds. The firm is targeting six to eight fellows per cycle, which, given its overall size, demonstrates the level of its commitment to the program.

To that effect, he notes that the fellowship’s goal is not to fit diverse lawyers into the career molds of straight white men, but rather, “to create an environment where people can bring their full selves to bear on their legal careers, to use their background to become a better litigator.”

In addition to a $30,000 stipend distributed in tranches, Selendy & Gay’s fellows will receive an unprecedented level of career support, including individualized coaching from a selected outside mentor, leadership skill development and devoted time with senior partners. “The real heart of this fellowship is the ongoing professional support, dedication of scarce resources and bespoke design. The fellowship is tailored to the needs of each recipient,” says partner David Flugman, who leads the firm’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. He notes that the demographic makeup of law students does not reflect who holds positions of power at law firms. So, he and his colleagues set out to level the playing field for people who come from less traditionally represented backgrounds in law firms, enabling them to succeed at the same rate as those from more advantaged circumstances (namely, straight white men). The fellowship’s structure is carefully crafted to ensure that it facilitates sustainable growth and support for its fellows. Flugman’s team conducted extensive research on other firms’ fellowships to assess how to improve upon current offerings. What they found was that firms’ DE&I recruiting efforts needed a paradigm shift. “The problem with other diversity-focused fellowships,” Flugman observes, “is that they concentrate 32

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Flugman explains that the team spent extensive time talking with associates of color and first-generation students about what resources they would have benefitted from earlier in their careers. In developing the core offerings of the fellowship, the firm knew it was critical to provide access to the right kind of support. “I’m very cognizant that, while a gay man, I am still a white cis man, and my experience is not the same as a Black woman graduating from law school,” notes Flugman.

Flugman himself is a celebrated trial lawyer, named as one of the “Best LGBT Lawyers Under the Age of 40” by the LGBT Bar Association and one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America” by Lawdragon. With multinational trial experience across industries, he represents clients in corporate financial litigation and business disputes. Flugman’s public interest work reflects his role as the firm’s leader of DE&I: In just a sampling of his successes, he led a team that won a crucial victory for thousands of LGBTQ+ youth when an appellate court rejected an attempt to reverse New Jersey’s ban on “sexual orientation change efforts,” also known as gay conversion therapy. The success of that case reinforced the strength of similar bans in seventeen other states and Washington, D.C. Flugman also represented several distinguished law professors, as amici curiae, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a closely watched gay rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He will be far from the only source of inspiration for the fellows. One of the fellowship’s external coaches is Kwame Christian, founder and director of the American Negotiation Institute. The American Negotiation Institute’s motto is, “The best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations,” and Christian, a lawyer himself, will demonstrate how those negotiation skills can transform a young attorney’s career. “When I’m doing continuing legal education classes on negotiation for lawyers, there’s

Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS

“

The real heart of this fellowship is the ongoing professional support, dedication of scarce resources and bespoke

design. The fellowship is

”

tailored to the needs of each recipient.

David Flugman

often an assumption that I’m going to focus only on negotiations with opposing counsel.” But, Christian says, “you’re going to negotiate even more with the people who are on your team. You need to negotiate with your clients and their expectations.”

their hunger to continue to get better. They keep on moving forward, which is really impressive.” He believes that “with this fellowship, they’re investing in the future, not only for their firm, but also for the community at large.”

In addition to his role at the American Negotiation Institute, Christian is also a writer for Forbes and a professor of law at both The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and Otterbein University’s MBA program.

The fellowship will help nurture each fellow’s future – not only through the fellowship’s offerings, but through the ethos of the firm itself. Selendy & Gay’s transparent and non-hierarchical structure means the fellows will have a true voice in the office. The advantage of a boutique firm, explains Flugman, is that “our third- and fourth-year associates are functioning on the same level as junior partners at other firms, in terms of what they’ve achieved, the experiences they’ve had and their comfort level in court.”

When asked how diversity can aid and transform a firm’s work, Christian explains that “Diversity of thought is important. The fellows are going to bring a different perspective that I think will serve the clients well, because then you’re getting the benefit of a true multitude of people, not clones of the same person.” As a result, diversity is not only integral from an equity standpoint, but from a business one, as well. Christian has collaborated extensively with Selendy & Gay in the DE&I space. Before starting this initiative, the firm worked with the American Negotiation Institute’s training program, which advises companies on how to deepen anti-racist practices in the workplace. He admires the firm’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion: “I’ve always been really impressed with not only their current progressive statistics, but 34

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

In fact, some of the firm’s developing practice areas have been realized thanks to the eagerness of its associates. Some fields, like family law and patents, have entered the firm’s portfolio because of associates’ specific interests. The firm also has an Associates’ Committee, where associates can get involved in recruiting, mentorship, marketing and other functions. In addition to reflecting the interests of all its lawyers, Selendy & Gay demonstrates a deep-seated commitment to public interest work. Both the firm’s

CHICAGO’S PREMIER PLAINTIFFS’ PERSONAL INJURY FIRM

Power Rogers is proud to have 11 of its partners recognized by Lawdragon.

CONGRATULATIONS JOSEPH A. POWER, JR.

LARRY R. ROGERS, JR. for being named as Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

LAWDRAGON 500 PLAINTIFF CONSUMER LAWYERS Joseph Balesteri Devon Bruce Kathryn Conway Carolyn Daley

Sean Houlihan Joseph Power Thomas Power Larry Rogers, Jr.

Larry Rogers, Sr.* Thomas Siracusa Jonathan Thomas (*) Lawdragon Hall of Fame

312.236.9381 // 70 West Madison | 55th Floor | Chicago, llinois 60602 // www.PowerRogers.com

accountable for conduct that contributed to Puerto Rico’s economic collapse. Specifically, they represent bond insurers who paid out over $1 billion dollars in claims after municipal debt underwritten by the banks – without proper due diligence – became unsustainable for Puerto Rico and its agencies, leading to massive defaults.

Kwame Christian

pro bono and commercial litigations fall in line with its ethical and moral values. In 2018, just after opening the firm, they filed a suit against loan service provider Navient on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in the Southern District of New York. The class action alleged that Navient misled public service borrowers (in this case, teachers, nurses and others) and prevented them from accessing loan forgiveness. The case settled on favorable terms for the borrowers in 2020, with Navient committing, among other things, to reform its call center practices and contribute $2.25 million to an independent organization that will deliver education and student loan counseling to public service borrowers. The firm continued to fight against unfair loan practices by later bringing suit against then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education on behalf of AFT and public servants who were blindsided by the rejection of their student loan forgiveness applications under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. In October, the team from Selendy & Gay achieved what was described as a “historic” settlement on behalf of AFT and the other plaintiffs. The agreement promises significant overhauls of the Department’s administration of the program and discharges the full remaining loan balances of the plaintiffs, eliminating close to $400,000 of debt and securing the forgiveness towards which they have worked diligently for over a decade. In terms of commercial litigation, the firm is currently involved in a suit to hold major Wall Street banks 36

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The firm is also handling several high-profile cryptocurrency litigations. In one such case, they represent investors alleging that the issuer Tether and crypto exchange Bitfinex falsely claimed that Tether, a purported “stablecoin,” was fully backed by U.S. dollars as part of a market-manipulation scheme that inflated the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, costing investors hundreds of billions of dollars. In September, the investors defeated an attempt to toss out their claims, and the case is now moving ahead in federal court. These kinds of cases are nothing new for Selendy & Gay’s attorneys: Before founding the firm, partner Philippe Selendy fought on the side of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against the world’s largest banks for their role in the subprime mortgage crisis, eventually securing $25 billion in settlements and trial verdicts for taxpayers in the aftermath of the Great Recession. All of these types of cases are ones which Selendy & Gay’s fellows will be working on when the fellowship begins. When asked about how other firms can have conversations about starting similar programs, Christian says the answer is by doing just that: “Often, procrastination is just a manifestation of fear. People need to start holding themselves accountable for actually creating something tangible. We overthink the process instead of leaning in, having the conversation and doing what needs to be done.” With the firm’s ethos and the creation of this fellowship, Selendy & Gay makes it clear that they are unafraid to take action. Since its inception, the firm has been described as a new model of elite litigation firm; as time passes, the team only further demonstrates their commitment to positively disrupting traditional law firms’ practices. When their fellowship begins, it will provide opportunities for junior lawyers to develop and launch their careers in a successful, supportive environment that strives for equity – spearheading an evolving legal landscape.

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS. ENDURING RESULTS.

LARGEST LAWFIRMS

LARGEST PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION FIRMS

RETURN ON INVESTMENT RELATIVE TO OUR FEES

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU TRANSFORM YOUR FIRM? We work with law firms to improve business strategy, optimize revenues, maximize profitability, digitally transform business processes, and effectively manage human capital at all levels. Our approach is rigorous, hands-on, and relentlessly focused on accelerating our clients’ return on investment. Visit us online to see case studies of the results we have delivered for our clients: www.pandcglobal.com/expertise/law-firms/

PandCglobal.com Beijing • Dallas • Dubai • Istanbul • London • Madrid • New York • Paris • Toronto • Vancouver

For decades, lawyers at Taylor & Ring have successfully pursued civil claims over police shootings when the criminal side fails.

LAST RESORT BY JAMES LANGFORD

ohn Taylor experienced firsthand the sea change in public attitudes toward police misconduct claims after the

now-infamous beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles

cops 30 years ago.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, for the past 20 years a name partner in a firm he founded on a handshake with David Ring, had just taken his first such case to court and seen it end with a hung jury.

He didn’t yet know the retrial would occur in a different world. In early 1991, television newscasters began airing a bystander’s

videotape of officers pummeling King during a traffic stop, sparking national outrage that included condemnation by

President George H.W. Bush.

Criminal charges were filed against some officers and by the

time they were acquitted in early 1992, an event that sparked the Los Angeles riots, Taylor had won a landmark $2.3M verdict in Velasquez v. City of Compton.

PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

Walter Lack (left), David Lira (right)

John Taylor

The first time around, Taylor says, the jury had believed wrongdoing occurred in the 1981 shooting death of 16-year-old Luis Velasquez but “didn’t want to bring back a verdict that would reflect individually against those officers, despite what the judge told them about the officers not being financially responsible.” Then, as now, the instinct to trust police, whom jurors and lawyers alike are taught from childhood to turn to in times of distress or danger, ran strong, along with the awareness that officers are regularly forced to make split-second decisions that can mean life or death for both themselves and their colleagues. Indeed, the officers who shot Velasquez argued that they acted in self-defense after the teenager and two other passengers climbed out of a Cadillac they had pulled over following a shooting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

An autopsy report, however, showed the high school junior had been shot three times, with bullets hitting the back of his head and the back of one leg, the newspaper said. Such evidence coming on top of the cable-television replays of the King beating left the second jury more disposed to question police accounts of the event, Taylor says. “That discussion had become more acceptable,” he explains. “The footage was hard to ignore.” Today, police misconduct cases have become a specialty for Taylor & Ring, which has won tens of millions of dollars for the clients who bring them and has a number of high-profile claims pending. The cases remain challenging, Taylor says, but in the three decades since the Velasquez verdict, jurors have become progressively more willing to critically examine the testimony of officers as well as the training they received. Among the drivers of that change are the increasing availability of video evidence, far easier to obtain after the advent of smartphones equipped with sophisticated cameras, and intense public debate surrounding high-profile misconduct cases. The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement since 2013 has focused particular attention on the deaths of Black people and other minorities during encounters with officers, from Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in 2014, to Freddie Gray in Baltimore a year later and George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020. “The question the jurors have to ask is, ‘Who’s going to police the police?’” says Taylor. “The cases that are going to trial have already been looked at by the district attorney and by some sort of internal review board and found to, one, not violate any criminal statutes and, two, be within the policy of the department. Overwhelmingly, that’s the case.” Taylor warns clients to expect that both internal investigations and reviews by the district attorney’s office are likely to exonerate the officers involved in their cases. Once that happens, he says, “you have to get just 12 lay people, 12 jurors, to take a look at the evidence and make a determination whether or not it’s acceptable police conduct.”

Neil Gehlawat

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Taylor collaborates on many misconduct claims with trial lawyer Neil Gehlawat, who joined Taylor & Ring in early 2020 partly because of the firm’s reputation for tackling such cases and winning them.

CONGRATULATIONS —————

Winston & Strawn applauds its elite lawyers who are listed among Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers of America

MATTHEW F. BERGMANN

KOBI KENNEDY BRINSON

MATS G. CARLSTON

LINDA T. COBERLY

EVA W. COLE

STEPHEN V. D’AMORE

MICHAEL S. ELKIN

THOMAS M. MELSHEIMER

KATHI VIDAL

NORTH AMERICA

EUROPE

ASIA

winston.com

The criminal prosecutions that followed the death of George Floyd, who stopped breathing while a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for eight minutes – an agonizing interval captured on video by a bystander’s cell phone – are rarities, Gehlawat says. More often, “the only recourse that families have is to come to firms like ours to find out what happened,” he adds. “The police have told them, ‘We can’t really tell you anything. There’s an ongoing investigation.’ When they come to us, we don’t know if it’s going to be a case or not, but we get to the bottom of what actually happened.” A 2012 graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Gehlawat had practiced in Bakersfield, Calif., before moving to the Los Angeles area, gravitating toward civil rights work after an early case involving a man beaten and asphyxiated by Kern County, Calif., sheriff’s deputies and California Highway Patrol officers. Taking such claims to trial, ideally, serves as a deterrent against abuse. At minimum, says Gehlawat, it serves as a check on a system that wields deadly force and has proven vulnerable to cover-ups. “People ask, ‘Why do you have to sue?’” Gehlawat says. “It’s because families are not given any answers and, 99 times out of 100, the officers are not criminally prosecuted.” The criminal prosecutions that followed the death of George Floyd, who stopped breathing while a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for eight minutes – an agonizing interval captured on video by a bystander’s cell phone – are rarities, Gehlawat says. More often, “the only recourse that families have is to come to firms like ours to find out what happened,” he adds. “The police have told them, ‘We can’t really tell you anything. There’s an ongoing investigation.’ When they come to us, we don’t know if it’s going to be a case or not, but we get to the bottom of what actually happened.” 42

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

If that review uncovers a violation by officers, “they feel like there should be some accountability,” Gehlawat says, as happened with his clients in Joseph Perez v. Fresno, a case he’s been working on for more than two years. Perez died in May 2017 after he was confronted by Fresno County, Calif., sheriff’s deputies looking into a report of a man acting strangely. Fresno city police, also present, had happened onto the scene by chance. The officers summoned an ambulance after one of them pushed Perez, who admitted to having used methamphetamine, to the ground to keep him from walking into the street. Paramedics then helped restrain him facedown with a blue backboard, which one of them told the law enforcement officers to sit on, Gehlawat said. Perez told the emergency workers that he couldn’t breathe, but over the next minute, his screams faded to whispers and then stopped altogether, Gehlawat says. When the board was turned over, Perez’s skin had turned blue and his wrists were limp. The suit, filed in federal court in Fresno, is ongoing, but the Taylor & Ring team notched an early victory in February, when a judge lifted the confidentiality designation on video recorded by a police officer’s body camera that showed Perez’s death.

W E A R E A N I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O M M U N I C AT I O N S F I R M A D V I S I N G A M B I T I O U S , C O M P L E X O R G A N I Z AT I O N S . WE PROVIDE THE E XPE RIE NCE , SKILLS AND I N S I G H T TO D R I V E YO U R B R A N D F O R WA R D O R , I N S P E C I A L S I T U AT I O N S , D E P L O Y T H E S T R AT E G I E S T O D E F E N D Y O U F R O M R E P U TAT I O N A L R I S K .

LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS

NEW YORK

SAN FRANCISCO

LONDON

CHICAGO

INFINITEGLOBAL.COM

LOS ANGELES

At first, “the defendants were all trying to hide the video; they didn’t want the public to see,” says Gehlawat. “We had to litigate that issue in court, and there’s now a published decision by the district court judge, where the law enforcement agencies ultimately gave in because they saw the writing on the wall, that the body camera footage is in the public interest.” As with the video of Rodney King’s beating and George Floyd’s death, the images sparked indignation. The judge’s ruling was huge, Gehlawat says, paving the way for body-camera footage to be published in other cases like Perez’s. “It’s a big win for plaintiffs’ lawyers who do these civil rights cases because people really care about this,” he says. “There’s a national conversation about policing so when the videos come out, they’re aired on different news stations and people start talking about it and there’s outrage.” That outrage gets results. On Sept. 30, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill banning restraint techniques that can cause asphyxiation. In another case, Taylor & Ring is working with the family of Melyda Corado, an assistant manager at Trader Joe’s. She was shot to death in July 2018 when Los Angeles police officers’ pursuit of a man accused of shooting his 76-year-old grandmother and taking his 17-year-old girlfriend hostage ended with his car crashing into a lightpole near the Hyperion Avenue store. The man, 28-year-old Gene Atkins, ran into Trader Joe’s, shooting at officers who returned fire, Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore said. Vanishing into the store, he held customers and employees hostage for about three hours before surrendering, Moore said. Corado was struck in the initial exchange of gunfire, and investigators later determined the fatal shot came from one of the officers. It was a departure from the more typical circumstances of a police-involved shooting, in which the wounded are those interacting with the officers, Gehlawat says: Corado was a completely innocent bystander.

Gehlawat, however, argues that “they did violate policy, because the policy is you’ve got to account for your background.” Video footage from the officers’ dashboard cameras and body cameras shows multiple pedestrians in the area: a woman pushing a shopping cart, for example, and an older man walking into the store. “These are all people who were in harm’s way,” he says. “The officers all said they knew it was super-busy, but they want to use that to say, ‘Because it was super-busy, we were more concerned about Atkins harming other people in the store.’” While both Taylor and Gehlawat hope that the firm’s work in such cases, combined with high-profile investigations around the country and intense publicity, will curb recurrences, there hasn’t been a noticeable decline so far. Most of the suits the firm files end up going to trial, Taylor says. “Lots of times, the city or law enforcement, whoever’s making the decision whether or not to settle the case, is receiving some sort of pressure not to look like they’ve given in to claims,” he says. “They want to demonstrate their support of the department and they agree to let the jury decide what the value of the case is. That way, they can wipe their own hands of responsibility and say, ‘Well, that’s what the jury said.’” Generally, lay jurors still place considerable faith and trust in police officers and getting them to accept that officers might lie to protect themselves, their colleagues or their departments is a large part of the case, Taylor explains. “When a trial is starting and a panel of prospective jurors show up and start to talk about police officers, there are lots of people who have had problems with and are critical about the police, but there are just as many people who believe the police are the reason their neighborhoods are safe and they’re very happy with them,” he says. The lawyers have no wish to undermine that confidence.

“The whole issue in the case is, ‘Can you shoot into a crowded grocery store on a Saturday afternoon in one of the busiest neighborhoods in Los Angeles?’” he says.

“There are a lot of good officers out there who do their jobs, who do a great job,” Gehlawat says. “Our job in these cases is never to malign the police or police departments in general.”

While the police department called Corado’s death a tragedy, officials said the officers fired to defend themselves and bystanders and did nothing wrong.

As Taylor often puts it at trial, “If I’ve got an issue at my house, I don’t call a lawyer, I call 911. I call for the cops.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The Fast Rise of Keller Lenkner as a

PRODUCT LIABILITY

POWERHOUSE

THE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRM HAS ACHIEVED NATIONAL PROMINENCE AND SECURED MDL LEADERSHIP ROLES AT A RECORD PACE. BY JAMES LANGFORD

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE FIRM LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

hen one measures Keller Lenkner LLC’s achievements in product liability litigation, it comes as a surprise that the firm is only in its fourth year of existence.

And yet this ambitious team represents thousands of clients in some of the largest multi-district product liability cases in the country. Keller Lenkner attorneys – mostly top-tier defense lawyers who moved to the plaintiffs’ side – have already landed four coveted court-appointed MDL leadership positions and a reputation for standout law and briefing. At the same time, Keller Lenkner has established a national presence, with offices in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Austin. And the firm has built a sophisticated operational infrastructure to support its booming practice, manned by a 100-plus-person team of exceptional business and legal professionals.

“From the beginning, we were involved in high-stakes, nationally prominent matters,” recalls Managing Partner Travis Lenkner, who co-founded the firm along with partner Ashley Keller and CEO Adam Gerchen. “We have expanded our reach into similarly compelling products cases. But our work across the opioid matters was the springboard to our practice today.” Partner Nicole Berg, who has helped lead the product-liability practice since she joined the firm in its first year, recalls the early days of that expansion – including how the firm earned its role in litigation over 3M earplugs for combat troops. Plaintiffs claim the devices were defective, failing to protect soldiers from injuries that caused hearing loss and tinnitus.

Even though Keller Lenkner’s attorney headcount was a mere three at the time of its launch in early 2018, its founders have never thought small.

“One of the attorneys who was launching the 3M matter reached out and asked if our team could help get it off the ground,” explains Berg. “We were involved early in helping to strategize where the MDL would land, and from there, how to address the legal issues that were likely to arise in the litigation.”

Straight out of the gate, Keller Lenkner pursued the largest, most complex litigation in American history – opioids. The firm represents the state of Arizona, numerous municipalities and putative classes of millions of insurance ratepayers in ongoing litigation related to the social and economic damage caused by the national opioid epidemic.

“She was hiring people based on their merits. We have significant, relevant experience and wanted

This ambitious team represents thousands of clients in some of the largest multi-district product liability cases in the country. Keller Lenkner attorneys have already landed four coveted court-appointed MDL leadership positions and a reputation for standout law and briefing.

Firm founders Ashley Keller, Adam Gerchen and Travis Lenkner

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Later, when Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida announced that she would hold interviews for leadership positions in the case, Berg threw her hat in the ring.

to be considered for the law-and-briefing role,” says Berg, who was appointed to the Law & Briefing Subcommittee. “That was our entrance – and, in my mind, the moment our practice really took off.” As trials began earlier this spring, Berg juggled the responsibilities of her leadership role on behalf of more than 230,000 servicemembers while also managing a team of more than two dozen attorneys, paralegals and case managers responsible for the 11,000-plus of the firm’s own clients. Keller Lenkner represents two of the 25 bellwether plaintiffs in the 3M litigation. Four of the first five bellwethers won favorable verdicts: In April, three consolidated plaintiffs were awarded $7.1 million; and in June, a single plaintiff was awarded just over $1 million. Trials resumed in September. “There are different demands when you think about the work we do for our clients and our role in leadership on the broader MDL. Those roles each require a totally different mindset,” says Berg, whose work recently led Crain’s Chicago Business to name her a Rising Star in Law. “But I think that says a lot about the types of attorneys at our firm: We embrace the challenge, and we perform our responsibilities in each role very well.” The firm’s early accomplishments in 3M kicked off an accelerated phase of growth for Keller Lenkner’s prod-

Nicole Berg

uct liability practice. Firm lawyers now hold leadership positions in the Zantac MDL, Paragard Intrauterine Device MDL and Onglyza and Kombiglyze MDL. And Keller Lenkner represents tens of thousands of clients in those and other product-liability matters. The firm’s second leadership appointment came in May 2020, when Keller was named co-chair of the Law & Briefing Committee in the Zantac litigation,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

We offer a work environment that’s intellectually challenging and rewarding. Our attorneys have flexibility and autonomy. Ultimately we’re reshaping the way the plaintiffs’ bar is viewed, and that means the best lawyers see Keller Lenkner as an attractive option relative to any defense firm.” In building an unrivaled plaintiffs’ shop, Keller Lenkner also deliberately seeks clerkship experience in the attorneys it brings on – and for good reason. “From clerkships comes a deeper, behind-the-scenes understanding of federal courts, judicial decision-making, and in some specific cases, the MDL process itself,” Lenkner says.

Kathryn Couey

which involves individuals who were diagnosed with cancer after taking the over-the-counter heartburn medication. Recently dubbed a “Plaintiffs’ Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal, Keller is counsel on numerous appeals from the Zantac MDL to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

The majority of Keller Lenkner’s partners and associates were law clerks at a federal appellate or district court, and four of its partners were law clerks at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Throughout its ranks, the Keller Lenkner team has a knack for persuasive advocacy. “We just have incredible legal talent, particularly on the law and briefing side,” says Keller. “We refuse to be out-briefed by the defense bar, and that is an area where we have really brandished our skills.” But law and briefing is just the start. From legal strategy to client services, Keller Lenkner attorneys hold a unique diversity of experience and ability. “Our team comes from such a diverse set of professional experiences, from defending companies to assessing litigation risk from a finance perspective. That mix of mindsets allows us to challenge one another, test creative legal solutions and pursue innovation to better serve our clients,” Lenkner says. Blend the right mix of skills and gusto with prestigious credentials, and you have a plaintiffs’ firm of a whole new caliber. Some 82 percent of Keller Lenkner’s partners and associates hail from national defense-oriented firms. Additionally, 73 percent of its partners and associates practiced at AmLaw 25 firms and elite trial boutiques, including Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Wilmer Hale and Jones Day. And 73 percent of the firm’s partners and associates attended a top-ranked law school. “We’ve built a firm that attracts the best and brightest,” Keller says. “We pursue complex, prominent cases. 50

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Ashley Barriere

Associate Kathryn Couey is one of the firm’s many former clerks. She also previously litigated at Kirkland & Ellis, and joined Keller Lenkner after serving as a law clerk to Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. “In my clerkship, it was so important to see how MDLs operate in court,” says Couey, whose current work focuses largely on the 3M MDL. “That experience across our team inspires a commitment to always put out exceptional work product, and an appetite to constantly expand our role on these cases.” Constant growth seems to be a running theme at Keller Lenkner. In December 2020, associate Ashley Barriere was appointed to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the Onglyza and Kombiglize

MDL. Like Couey, Barriere is also a former law clerk, having worked for Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Louisiana. Judge Fallon, who was presiding over the Chinese Drywall Products Liability MDL, Vioxx Products Liability MDL, and Xarelto Products Liability MDL during Barriere’s clerkship, “could not emphasize preparation enough,” she says. “He truly loves the law and that inspired me. I got to see the MDL process from the start of its formation, learn how organizationally things are set up, how plaintiff leadership appointments work. That was a real education for me, and now I use it in my practice.” Among the drivers of Keller Lenkner’s momentum is the team’s genuine passion for its work. The firm’s mentality appeals to talented young attorneys who are interested in plaintiffs’ law but want the level of complexity and sophistication that has traditionally come with the defense side. “What I love about working at Keller Lenkner is that the firm is approaching plaintiff litigation in a really different way,” says Hannah Roberts, an associate who supports litigation in both Zantac and 3M. “Not only is there a really strong commitment to excellence and the need to be the best at what we’re doing, but there’s also this really strong startup mentality and spirit of innovation. We never ask, ‘How can we do this?’ We ask, ‘What’s the best way to do this?’” For younger attorneys, the firm offers chances to grow by diving into complex litigation that would be off-limits to them at large defense shops, limited only by their own entrepreneurialism. “We do not stand on ceremony based on years of experience. We all pull up our sleeves and we do it. The firm is really generous about giving us all opportunities,” Roberts says. The payoff from that approach is clear. In February 2021, Berg landed her second leadership appointment – on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Paragard IUD litigation, centered on claims that the device is prone to breaking upon removal, causing injuries and complications, including infertility. She is one of eight lawyers who will lead the effort on behalf of plaintiffs who suffered injuries as a result of the contraceptive device. With two women at Keller Lenkner now holding three MDL leadership roles, the firm’s support and promotion of women leaders – not only in the product-liability world, but in the plaintiffs’ bar at large – is evident. 52

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Hannah Roberts

“Women are making great inroads and I think at Keller Lenkner, we’re one step ahead,” Barriere says. “But on a broader scale, I definitely think the equality there is improving amongst the MDL world and that judges recognize that. There is a huge pool of talented female plaintiffs’ attorneys and I’m glad they’re getting recognized in these leadership positions.” Keller Lenkner, meanwhile, credits its entire team as the firm’s most critical resource. “We’re choosy in who we bring into the organization, because that investment in human capital – from the attorneys we hire to the professionals who manage client relationships – is ultimately the most important thing for our clients,” Keller says. The team’s high bar of credentials may facilitate litigation, but its success is amplified by dedication to those it serves. “I knew in law school that I wanted to help people,” Roberts says. “The firm has given me a platform to do that, but to also visualize the goals I’ve always had for my legal career.” Accelerated by a well-curated culture of entrepreneurialism, excellence, innovation and service, Keller Lenkner has undergone a head-turning evolution. From its start with just three people, it has become home to a bench of top-tier attorneys who lead litigation across some of the biggest MDLs in history on behalf of tens of thousands of plaintiffs across the country. As for the next stage of the firm’s product liability practice, we can only expect another wave of innovation and impact. “We set enormously high standards for ourselves,” Keller says. “And we’re not going to be satisfied until we’re beating our own expectations.”

I S P RO UD TO H AV E five of our outstanding legal recruiters recognized by LawDragon in 2021 as Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists

Deborah Ben-Canaan

Robert J. Brigham

Jon Lindsey

Hall of Fame Inductee

Jacquelyn Knight

Jeffrey Lowe

For over nearly four decades in legal search, our recruiters have changed the lives of countless lawyers and legal professionals and altered the trajectory of law firms and corporate legal departments. Our dedication and commitment to the advancement of the legal industry have led us to offering a suite of legal recruiting and talent management services in 27 offices around the world: > Associate Practice Group

> Law Firm Management

> Interim Legal Talent

> Partner Practice Group

> In-House Counsel Recruiting

> Transform Advisory Services

Our more than 200 recruiters and consultants understand the legal landscape and the many twists and turns that can happen on the road to success. Let us help you navigate your journey.

The Global Navigators of Legal Careers | www.MLAglobal.com An Allegis Group Company

Walter Lack (left), David Lira (right)

John Taylor

Validity Finance is matching its passion for access to justice with a new program to promote diversity within the profession.

FUNDING

FUTURE THE

BY JAMES LANGFORD

THINK BIG PICTURE. That’s the overarching lesson participants in Validity Finance’s Equal Access Fellowship have taken away from the summer program crafted for law students from backgrounds underrepresented in the field today. Introduced in 2019, the paid fellowship chose two students that year, scaled back to just one in 2020 as the Covid-19 pandemic shuttered large swaths of the U.S. economy and admitted two again in 2021. Each worked out of Validity’s New York office, earning $1,000 a week, and was given the option of spending half of the 10-week program with a pro bono public-service organization. One of the only fellowships provided by a litigation funder to first-year law students, Validity’s program teaches participants how the growing litigation finance industry helps level the playing field in commercial disputes while offering real-world experience interacting with law firms and helping review case-funding requests. PORTRAIT PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

The experience “showed me not only how much you can do as a litigator, but also how much you can do to improve how legal services are delivered,” says 2021 Fellow Shao-Jia Chang. A Harvard Law student, Chang grew up in a rural northern California town and worked as an aide to U.S. Rep Mike Thompson after obtaining her bachelor’s degree in psychology and legal studies from the University of California, Berkeley. “Legal careers are long,” adds 2020 Fellow Amber Stewart, “and the Equal Access Fellowship Program taught me to think broadly about my legal career. There are myriad forms a legal career can take, and I shouldn’t limit myself when thinking of my future path.” Validity CEO Ralph Sutton says the fellowship serves the firm’s core mission of broadening entrée to civil courts while simultaneously helping address inequities in a profession whose upper echelons are still dominated by white men.

Both the pandemic shutdown of 2020 and the social justice protests that followed the death of a Black man being detained by Minneapolis police that spring underscored “a heightened need for young lawyers interested in expanding access to the civil justice system,” he says. According to data collected by the Move the Needle Fund, a collaboration of law firms and the Diversity Lab to promote inclusiveness in the field, law school graduating classes are made up of about 50 percent women, 33 percent racial and ethnic minorities and 6 percent LGBTQ+ students, but the equity partnership ranks at large law firms consist of just 21 percent women, 9 percent racial and ethnic minorities and 2 percent LGBTQ+ people. “After spending a summer at Validity, I have a better grasp of what lawyers can do to improve the efficiency and fairness of the legal system and how to start asking those questions even as law students,” Chang says. Following are profiles of Chang and two other participants in Validity’s program. Keep reading to find out more about what they’re doing with what they learned. Name: Marlon Becerra Education: Bachelor of arts, Hampshire College; Juris doctor candidate, Harvard Law Residence: Queens, New York How did you become interested in litigation funding? As a first-generation law student, I was unaware of the litigation funding industry. I first learned about litigation funding by seeing Validity Finance’s Equal Access Fellowship application on my school’s career services website. I was extremely interested in Validity’s mission to help increase access to justice by supporting meritorious legal claims.

“The Equal Access Fellowship provided

me with the opportunity to see differ-

ent ways to promote greater access

to justice. I learned how litigation funding can enable under-resourced

plaintiffs to pursue their meritorious

claims.”

— Marlon Becerra

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

How has the Equal Access Fellowship influenced your career goals? The Equal Access Fellowship provided me with the opportunity to see different ways to promote greater access to justice. I learned how litigation funding can enable under-resourced plaintiffs to pursue their meritorious claims. I also learned about innovative efforts in Utah and Arizona to allow lawyers to feesplit with nonlawyers in hopes of reducing some of the costs of accessing legal services. As part of the fellowship, I volunteered with the Strategic Litigation Department in the Innocence Project; there, I had the opportunity to help impact their litigation efforts to prevent wrongful convictions. As I continue my legal

The Modern Law Firm. Refocused. Insightful enough to reinvent the law firm paradigm. Nimble enough to take on everything in our path. Bold enough to recover $45 billion for our clients.

www.selendygay.com

While the first year of law school teaches us the basic doctrinal principles of law, little time is given to the practical considerations real clients are constantly considering. In addition to the strength of their legal claim, clients have to take into account other aspects of a lawsuit such as the duration of litigation, the costs of expert witnesses, the venue of the lawsuit, and the public perception of the litigation. Understanding these factors is critical to advising clients on the best course of action to obtain their desired outcome. Name: Amber Stewart Education: Bachelor of arts, Princeton University; Juris doctor candidate, University of Chicago Law City: Chicago How did you become interested in litigation funding?

“The program has been an immense

influence. Working at Validity

exposed me to a new sector of the legal industry that very few law

students get to learn about before

leaving law school.“ – Amber Stewart

career, I will always seek creative ways in which I can support more individuals to access justice through our legal processes. How did the fellowship change your perceptions of the litigation funding industry and the U.S. legal system as a whole? At first, I was skeptical about the industry’s model and Validity’s claim about how the industry helps increase access to justice. Then, I got to witness firsthand how the team at Validity worked intimately to support their clients, and I heard the clients attest to how the funding has enabled them to reach fairer settlements, to better protect their intellectual property, or to prepare a stronger case for trial. In a legal system where plaintiffs are often under-resourced and lawsuits are so expensive, litigation funding provides a unique solution to give smaller companies the opportunity to enforce their litigation claims. What was your most unexpected takeaway from the experience? 58

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I am a Doctoroff Business Leadership Program Candidate at my law school, and the program directors invited Katherine Wolanyck of Burford Capital for a dinner event. Hearing Ms. Wolanyck describe her work in litigation finance piqued my interest. When I saw Validity Finance’s job posting online for the Equal Access Fellowship and read about the firm’s litigation finance work and commitment to increasing access to justice, I immediately applied! How has the Equal Access Fellowship influenced your career goals? The program has been an immense influence. Working at Validity exposed me to a new sector of the legal industry that very few law students get to learn about before leaving law school. Programs like Validity’s Equal Access Fellowship are slowly changing that, and I hope more litigation funding companies follow suit. Particular to Validity, I cannot say enough about the incredible mentorship and career advice I’ve received from the whole team. Their advice was instrumental in my decision to apply for judicial clerkships, and I will be clerking next fall. Furthermore, working with the team helped hone my research and writing skills and my ability to think like a transactional lawyer. What is your dream job at present and how might litigation funding play a role in it? My dream job is one where I am continually challenged as a lawyer and a thinker, and litigation funding certainly does that. It blends together legal research and writing with business analytics in an interesting and sometimes complex way. Legal careers

EXCEPTIONAL LEGAL JOURNALISM SINCE 2005

lawdragon.com

are long, and the Equal Access Fellowship Program taught me to think broadly about my legal career. How did the fellowship change your perceptions of the litigation funding industry and the U.S. legal system as a whole? The Equal Access fellowship gave me a greater appreciation of how increasingly popular litigation funding is in both the domestic and international legal industries. I also began to consider how litigation funding can play a role in addressing the access-to-justice issue in the U.S. legal system. What was your most unexpected takeaway from the experience? There are myriad forms a legal career can take, and I shouldn’t limit myself when thinking of my future path. Name: Shao-Jia Chang Education: Bachelor’s degree in legal studies and psychology, University of California Berkeley; Juris doctor candidate, Harvard Law Hometown: Lakeport, Calif. How did you become interested in litigation funding? After a year of doctrinal courses delivered over Zoom, I wanted a summer internship that explored the practice of law and questioned assumptions that the legal profession makes. I was incredibly fortunate to stumble upon Validity on our career services page as I was unfamiliar with litigation funding. I was drawn to its talented people and its mission to improve access to justice. Simply going through the interview process, I knew I would learn so much from a summer with Validity and its attorneys. How has the Equal Access Fellowship influenced your career goals? Going into the summer, I knew I was interested in pursuing litigation after law school. The Equal Access Fellowship showed me not only how much you can do as a litigator, but also how much you can do to improve how legal services are delivered. Similar to Validity, I know in my career I want to continue to question the status quo and integrate equity in everything I do. What is your dream job at present and how might litigation funding play a role in it? If not in litigation funding, in my work, I want to tackle the difficult problems in law and improving access to justice. 60

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“ The Equal Access Fellowship showed me not only how much you

can do as a litigator, but also how

much you can do to improve how legal services are delivered.”

— Shao-Jia Chang

How did the fellowship change your perceptions of the litigation funding industry and the U.S. legal system as a whole? After the fellowship, I have a thorough understanding of the different models of litigation funding and how it fits within the legal system – which is unique amongst law students. Spending a summer at Validity, I have a better grasp of what lawyers can do to improve the efficiency and fairness of the legal system and how to start asking those questions even as law students. What was your most unexpected takeaway from the experience? Litigation funding is what you make of it. Everyone on the team has a vision of what they want to do with litigation funding – something they are most passionate about or an impact they want to make – and the team, together, decides which priorities to take on. This is not so much a surprise, but I was impressed by how even the other Fellow and I were integrated and involved from day one.

ON THE

FRONT LINES Nearly 50 years after its founding, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack remains tireless in the pursuit of accountability. BY EMILY JACKOWAY Partners Walter Lack and David Lira have spent most of their careers practicing at different firms, but they always shared a common enemy: major companies who inflict harm on an unprotected public. When Lack co-founded Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack in 1974, he began building a legacy devoted to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable against powerful interests. Now, after decades of acclaim and high-profile wins, the addition of Lira makes the firm even better positioned to confront its courtroom adversaries – whatever the cost. The plaintiffs-side firm covers a range of practices, from aviation litigation to environmental catastrophes to personal injury cases. They are also renowned for their fire litigation, currently headed by Lack and particularly vital for a Los Angeles-based firm surrounded by growing climate threats in California. PHOTO BY AMY CANTRELL

Walter Lack (left), David Lira (right)

Over the years, that specialty has meant taking on one company repeatedly: Pacific Gas and Electric, or PG&E. “These giant utilities, PG&E being the largest utility in the world, are monopolies,” explains Lack. “They are not accountable to anyone politically or legally, and they behave like a country unto themselves. So, we take great delight when the opportunity presents itself to sue them.” That opportunity came when the firm took on the famous “Erin Brockovich” case, popularized by the film starring Julia Roberts. Though it wasn’t fire litigation, the case was the firm’s first foray into battle with PG&E. The case alleged that a corrosion-fighting and cancer-causing chemical PG&E added to a cooling tower system entered the groundwater in the city of Hinkley, Calif. The firm represented 1,500

power lines. They also confirmed that PG&E was told of the incident just five minutes after it occurred, but that they didn’t send a crew out to the site until 10 hours later. By that time, the fire had spread to acres upon acres of land. Legally, Lack translates, “We’ve got them cold.” The firm’s previous successes support his confidence. After a major fire in San Diego County seven years ago, the firm won $500M from Sempra, the company that controls gas and electric in the county. While that win was historic for the firm, it’s the stories of personal losses from these fires that leave an impact on the firm’s lawyers. During the Woolsey fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties a few years ago, the firm represented the

Litigations against massive entities like PG&E or the city of Santa Monica aren’t cheap. To be done well, the cases require an immense dedication of resources to investigators, expert witnesses and other outside contractors. That is a commitment that Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack is proud to make. Both Lack and Lira feel that what sets their firm apart is its dedication to pouring every necessary resource into a case. “In many instances, we’re taking on Fortune 500 companies that hire lawyers with more than a thousand members in their firms and possess unlimited resources to defend themselves,” Lira says. “So, you can’t go limping into these cases. You have to be ready for that fight, whatever it takes.” individuals who were affected by the contamination and recovered more than $700M in damages. As the firm touts on its website: “We finished what Erin Brockovich started.” More than 20 years later, they continue to hold PG&E accountable for conduct that harms the state’s residents. The Dixie Fire in California is the current raging threat, shaping up to be the largest fire in California’s history at over one million acres of damage since it began in July 2021. In true innovative form, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack has had a team of four fire litigators in Northern California talking with victims and formulating a legal strategy since the fire started – rather than waiting for the end of the fire to assess damage and hear from victims. The Dixie fire, Lack explains, began due to negligence on PG&E’s part. Thanks to the firm’s fire-cause origin experts, they were able to determine that the fire began after a tree came into contact with one of PG&E’s 64

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

largest claimant, Malibu Wines. The company owned a large farm that was ravaged by the fire; every structure on the farm went up in flames and they incurred $150M of damage. There were 82 people living on the farm at the time, Lack remembers, and every person got out alive. But rather than fleeing, those people saved every single animal from the farm’s zoo while their own homes burned to the ground. “That’s a true heroic effort,” says Lack. As managing partner, Lack is ready to head up or lend a hand in any of the firm’s practices. He specializes in aviation litigation and has decades of experience in class actions, environmental litigation, mass toxic tort and more. With the recent crush of fire cases, Lack stepped in to help organize. Being part of management, he says, “it’s a simple thing.” Fire litigation, of course, isn’t the only burgeoning area in which the firm tackles large industries failing

“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, —Kay Hoppe and unwavering determination...”

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.

2021

to protect the public. And the firm isn’t one to rest on its reputation built on past achievements. The addition of Lira in 2020 brought an additional wealth of complex litigation experience that deepens the firm’s bench. He has over 30 years of successes in matters including product liability, wrongful death, automobile crashes and negligence. (Prior to partnering with Lack’s team, he was a solo practitioner after departing the Girardi | Keese firm that has since gone into bankruptcy.) Most Recently, Lira litigated three notable cases protecting the rights of young people. In one case, he represented students who sued the University of Southern California. The university made headlines a few years ago when misconduct allegations arose surrounding the student health center’s gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall. Tyndall was accused of performing unprofessional and invasive exams on his patients, largely young women in college who were on their own for the first time. The university had received scores of complaints regarding the doctor’s behavior since the 1990s, but Tyndall continued to practice, seeing tens of students a day and thousands per year. In the end, USC was forced to pay $846M in damages to the victims. As Lira explains, there is no insurance coverage for this type of tort, so the money will have to come directly from USC’s coffers. And, as part of the settlement, the university will put in safeguards to ensure that no students are ever forced into this position again. Lira has also recently tried two cases on behalf of young children. In one case currently pending, Lira is pursuing claims against the Los Angeles foster care system for the death of a three-year-old due to negligence. The case argues that the social workers in these facilities are not provided with adequate resources to ensure the health and safety of the children they have under their care.

Litigations against massive entities like PG&E or the city of Santa Monica aren’t cheap. To be done well, the cases require an immense dedication of resources to investigators, expert witnesses and other outside contractors. That is a commitment that Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack is proud to make. Both Lack and Lira feel that what sets their firm apart is its dedication to pouring every necessary resource into a case. “In many instances, we’re taking on Fortune 500 companies that hire lawyers with more than a thousand members in their firms and possess unlimited resources to defend themselves,” Lira says. “So, you can’t go limping into these cases. You have to be ready for that fight, whatever it takes.” A prime example of that ethos is the Erin Brockovich case. Though the film doesn’t show it, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack was $6M deep into that trial at one point. They hired the foremost experts on cancer causation and disease processes, ensuring that every fact of the case was unassailable. “It was life or death at that point,” remembers Lack. “We had to win.” But it’s not just financial resources that the firm dedicates – it’s also the human ones that are rooted in the firm’s strong culture. The cornerstone of the firm’s success, says Lack, is the way the team eschews 9-5 norms, dedicating immense time and energy into their cases. “I’m a grinder. I need to read every stitch of testimony, even if it’s not my witness,” Lira says. “So, I’m at home on the weekends and I’m reading transcripts. I’m reviewing documents.” That hard work comes with a close-knit community. The firm is collaborative, says Lack: “Everyone works for everyone. If David went down the hallway and walked into someone’s office and said, ‘I need help on this,’ they would just say, ‘Yeah.’ They wouldn’t say, ‘Well, I work for somebody else.’”

In another sensitive case, he and other attorneys are suing the city of Santa Monica for failure of oversight due to abuses inflicted during their police department’s after-school program. In a similar situation to the USC case, a volunteer for the program molested a multitude of children over a period of 12 years. The fallout for victims in these kinds of cases, Lira says, is lifelong.

The firm’s results over the long haul show that the highly committed community dynamic works. With the majority of their cases taken on a contingency basis, that level of dedication and workplace bonds is even more necessary. Lira says he is proud to join a firm that continues to take every conceivable step to ensure that it succeeds for clients who are often going through the most traumatic events in their lives.

“The ongoing damage is profound, and my hope is that they will get the proper treatment to help overcome these experiences,” he adds.

“This firm is a great group of trial lawyers who are dedicated to the cause, who will roll up their sleeves and work for however long to get the job done,” Lira says.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

CONGRATULATIONS to Lieff Cabraser’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers for 2021

Elizabeth Cabraser

Wendy Fleishman

Kelly Dermody

Richard Heimann

Eric Fastiff

Steven Fineman

Robert Nelson

Annika K. Martin

* Lawdragon 500 Hall of Fame

SAN FRANCISCO NEW YORK NASHVILLE MUNICH lieffcabraser.com

IN THE PURSUIT LOVE OF LEARNING LEADS TO SUCCESS IN THE COURTROOM

In cases involving international aviation disasters to medical negligence, Smith LaCien co-founder Todd Smith has earned more than 100 verdicts and settlements worth more than $1M.

OF JUSTICE

PHOTO BY MICHELLE NOLAN

lying had always fascinated Chicago trial lawyer Todd A. Smith. As a young lawyer practicing injury law, he decided to include aviation in the list of practice areas in which he wanted to excel. To do that, he learned how to fly small aircraft; earned his Private Pilot’s License (PPL); took the written FAA exam; logged the requisite hours of flight time; and passed the check rides and solo flight requirements. “I wanted to learn as much as I could about piloting aircraft so I could talk intelligently and knowledgeably to aviation engineers and experts to better understand what led to a tragic aviation disaster, then share it with clients or family members,” he states. After receiving his PPL, he flew a Cessna 172 fourseat single-engine prop plane most weekends until eventually the long hours and demand of trial work prevailed. His days of recreational flying tailed off.

weeks, a judgment of $2 million was awarded to the family of the pilot. Over the last 30-plus years, Smith has represented plaintiffs involved in numerous domestic and international aviation cases, including a Turkish Airline crash near Amsterdam and a domestic crash in the mountains of Afghanistan on approach to Kabul. More recently, he worked with the prominent New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, serving on the plaintiff’s executive committee of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 that crashed on March 10, 2019, shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing 159. The Boeing 737 Max planes were subsequently grounded worldwide and were only recently recertified to fly again. “There is a great deal of satisfaction that results from providing at least some sense of justice for families who have suffered devasting losses,” Smith says.

That’s the kind of committed pursuit of learning and preparation which has led to a highly successful legal career and Smith’s reputation as a go-to trial lawyer. Without fanfare, he has quietly gained a reputation as one of the nation’s top trial lawyers. Those who know him say his pursuit of justice for severely injured people and families who have lost loved ones is truly heartfelt.

Sometimes in small aircraft incidents, there is a need to reconstruct the events, since there were no witnesses nor, as in large commercial flights, data recorders to provide important information. The Russell v Agusta case, involving the death of the helicopter pilot Michael Russell, 50, was one such case. He was the only person on board the Agusta 109(c) helicopter when it crashed.

Previously a founding partner at Power, Rogers & Smith, he left in early 2020 to form Smith LaCien LLP with fellow trial lawyer and partner Brian LaCien. The two had worked together for 15 years and had a history of winning exceptional results for clients, with $2 billion in settlements and verdicts, and more than 100 cases with results of at least $1 million.

“We put together a great team of experts to help demonstrate, through a reconstruction of the events and the helicopter, that the cause was not pilot error as claimed but a tail rotor failure which resulted in loss of control and a deadly fiery crash near the DuPage airport,” he states.

Aviation Practice Evolves Smith has succeeded in both commercial and general aviation small craft cases. In his first aviation case in the 1980s, he represented the families who lost loved ones when American Airlines Flight 191 crashed shortly after takeoff from O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. All 271 on board perished. It remains the worst domestic aviation accident ever. Around the same time, he tried a wrongful death case of a young student pilot who lost control and crashed just short of the runway at the DuPage Airport. That case was against the United States and their Air Traffic Controllers filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Now-retired Chief Judge James F. Holderman requested the trial be held at the University of Chicago Law School auditorium, since he taught there at the time and wanted the students to learn from an authentic trial. At the end of two 70

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Class Actions Take Center Stage Smith’s own practice is a hybrid of subjects that have intrigued him over the years, from financial fraud and malpractice matters to litigation over faulty Takata airbags. The latter became the subject of international scrutiny after reports in the mid-2010s that some airbags were “exploding,” sending shrapnel into the passenger compartment when the vehicles in which they were installed crashed. Ultimately, 67 million of the protective devices were recalled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration due to the explosions, which had resulted in injuries and deaths both domestically and abroad. Vehicles affected included models from Honda, BMW, Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford and others. Smith serves as co-lead counsel on the Economic Loss portion of this national multi-district litigation in the Southern District of Florida Federal courthouse. Other matters in Smith’s caseload include a deadly explosion in a grain elevator, trucking accidents,

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 2021

100 LEADING CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS AND CONGRATULATES ALL THE 2020 LAW DRAGONS ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

WWW.NEWELLIS.COM

medical negligence and ongoing litigation in a large action, consolidated for discovery, against sterilization company Sterigenics, for alleged health problems and specifically certain cancers that were caused by deadly ethylene oxide emissions from its facility in Willowbrook, Ill. Smith serves as co-lead counsel in the litigation. About 700 cases have been filed to date.

breathing room that allowed us to be completely settled in as the re-opening occurs.”

Sterigenics closed its Willowbrook facility in 2019 after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 2018, listed the town and surrounding neighborhoods as among a few dozen nationwide facing cancer risks from air pollution that exceeded agency guidelines.

On a broader scale, Smith wonders how many of the legal profession’s concessions to Covid-19 during the past year will outlive the pandemic. Some concessions, such as conducting hearings, case management conferences and depositions with videoconferencing apps like Zoom, seem to have proven their worth.

Among the class action cases in which the firm is involved is the Monsanto Roundup weed-killer litigation. The pesticide is known to cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma in people who have been exposed. A number of verdicts have already been successfully obtained and affirmed on appeal.

Bar Leadership Providing leadership in the legal profession and specifically promoting and protecting access to justice has been a priority and passion throughout Smith’s career. While serving as president of the Illinois State Bar Association in the late 1990s, “Access to Justice” was the overriding theme and included a large pro bono effort to aid special needs children who were affected by the cutbacks in federal programs. Smith and a group of volunteers advocated for reinstatement of funding on a case-by-case basis. As president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association in 2010, he fought back against efforts to reduce workers’ rights to compensation in work-related injuries. And, as president of American Association Justice (AAJ), he launched the 7th Amendment Fund to protect civil justice rights and the right to a trial by jury. During that time, the George W. Bush Administration pushed hard for caps on jury trial awards nationally through their legislative efforts. Ultimately, those legislative efforts failed.

Impact of the Pandemic Smith LaCien’s opening coincided with the unexpected arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic at a time when economists were still predicting a year of continued economic growth leading up to the fall Presidential elections. Obviously, opening during a pandemic was not the time frame which Smith and LaCien would have chosen, but they managed to make the most of it. “The timing wasn’t perfect, that’s for sure,” Smith says. “But to some extent, it gave us a bit more latitude and 72

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

At the start of the pandemic, Cook County jury trials came to a halt but have now resumed on a limited basis. The courts have announced they’ll be fully reopened in October 2021, but the emergence of the new Covid-19 variant could mean the date is altered.

“I think there’s a lot more efficiency in handling some things remotely,” he says. When it comes to juries, however, Smith believes justice is best decided and delivered face-to-face. “It is critical for jurors to be present and for juries to see the witnesses and make assessments of credibility,” he says. “I don’t see how a jury can do that effectively unless they’re together in person.”

The Road Ahead

Smith says the real joy in practicing law is not just the satisfaction of helping everyday people but the in-depth learning needed across a wide spectrum of topics to successfully litigate a case. With a master’s degree in business administration from Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management, he has continued to learn about complex matters that range from the causes of a birth injury to catastrophic injuries suffered from motor vehicle crashes, to the intricacies involved in accounting and financial malfeasance cases. He and LaCien worked together on an accounting malpractice case in Peoria, Ill., involving their client and the international accounting firm KPMG. Their work resulted in a $17.6 million record jury verdict. “We intend to continue pursuing cases of all kinds in which we have proven success,” he states. “We already enjoy our autonomy and various collaborations. But size does have an impact on your ability to control your own destiny, especially if you decide you want to consider a new or additional direction.” Smith believes the firm’s growth is inevitable. Already, they have added several paralegals, including in nursing, to assist in medical issues and reviews. They’ve also added other staff including associate attorneys. “We look forward to the coming year,” he concludes, “and anticipate additional success as we explore every opportunity.”

The Next Generation Plaintiffs’ Law Firm

Overcoming the Insurmountable As one of the nation’s fastest growing law firms, we seek out groundbreaking legal challenges and complicated cases where our legal and strategic counsel can add significant value. We combine a top-flight team of attorneys with a hungry, startup mentality. And we focus, first and foremost, on delivering results for our clients.

kellerlenkner.com Chicago | Washington, D.C. | Austin

A New Formation BY KATRINA DEWEY

HOW THE 19 JUDGES OF BLACK GIRL MAGIC CHANGED THE FACE OF JUSTICE.

PHOTOGRAPHY BY FELIX SANCHEZ

Faith. Hope. Determination. Angela Graves-Harrington possessed them all even as a child in Gulfport, Miss. The kind of town so small her math teacher at Jim Hill High School was her brother’s godmother. She knew from who knows when that she would become a lawyer. Early on, she watched as kids were treated differently, some suspended from school for the same infractions for which others got a pass. Debate on a team sponsored by the local legal aid organization honed her interest and she became a champion. She was often accompanied by her first son, Daylen, at Thurgood Marshall Law School in Houston. Graves-Harrington ascended through law practice by keeping her heart open to opportunity: She was offered space to set up a law practice, a salary from a volunteer job. Good things happen to good people. But today, her special magic had landed in the wrong tribunal. Graves-Harrington was representing a single mom accused of not assisting her children in returning a phone call from their father. Judge Charley Prine of the 246th District Family Court in Houston sentenced her client to 180 days in jail with immediate remand and no chance to call her kids. “I could not sleep,” says Graves-Harrington, whose tears and prayers provided no solace. None, that is, until she talked to her dad. In the immortal words of loving fathers everywhere, he told her to seek justice: “Take his bench.” Graves-Harrington threw her hat in the ring in a bid that seemed quixotic given the difficulty of diverse candidates breaking through to elected court positions. To win, Graves-Harrington realized anger could set the table but it wouldn’t provide the meal. She asked herself, “What is God putting me here for? Why is He pushing me forward to run?”

at Baldwin Williams & Associates. Baldwin led the criminal trials with Williams as second chair, and they reversed roles for civil matters. After a decade of working with prosecutors before a largely Republic bench in Harris County, Baldwin respected the judge’s power to set the tone. She felt an adjustment was in order. “I was not a stranger to having to dig in and work hard. And my expectation was to win because I wanted to. But I had low expectations because it had historically been nearly impossible to win,” says Baldwin, a former Army Reservist and prison guard.

“When I sought out this journey, I knew some of the ladies. But we all had a common interest and a common story with being in the courthouse. You want more fair judges and more diversity on the bench. So we made a sisterhood.” Ronnisha Bowman She had nothing to lose. She’d done everything as a trial lawyer, even trying a capital murder case. “So this was like, ‘You need to either figure out something else to do, or figure out something more challenging, or take on the cause.’ Change the system,” says Baldwin, who became the first woman to run and later preside as an out member of the LGBTQ+ community in Harris County.

She was not alone. Graves-Harrington was one of 19 African American women who found their way to the ballot seeking judicial posts in Harris County in the historic 2018 election. They came together for the first time as a group at a Democratic Party get-together for its full slate of candidates.

Baldwin encouraged Williams to join her on the journey. It was not a hard sell to a woman whose mother gave her the initials LAW for LaShawn Antoinette Williams. Williams had done everything in the law – “from the rooter to the tooter” – as a prosecutor, in-house counsel at Cracker Barrel and then owning her own firm. She took to heart President Barack Obama’s call to be part of the solution rather than dwell in bitterness.

“None of us knew until we walked in the room after the primaries and you looked up and you thought, ‘Wow!’ In a county that maybe had one or two African American women on the bench at one time, we have 19 in this room. It’s unheard of,” says LaShawn Williams, who was a partner with Shannon Baldwin

Eight of the 19 graduated from Thurgood Marshall, three in 2006. Some had crossed paths in practice, with Toria Finch serving as the supervising attorney for Tonya Jones when she was a legal fellow in the Travis County Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, for instance.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LaShawn Williams

Ronnisha Bowman

“When I sought out this journey, I knew some of the ladies,” says Ronnisha Bowman. “But we all had a common interest and a common story with being in the courthouse. You want more fair judges and more diversity on the bench. So we made a sisterhood.” One other thing they had in common was the height of the mountain they were choosing to climb. Sandra Peake and Latosha Lewis Payne knew its peril well, having run for judge before. In a lifetime and career of incredible success as a champion athlete – running hurdles, of course – and the exceedingly rare achievement of earning a partnership in a major law firm, Lewis Payne had lost her race in 2014. But the experience gave her sea legs. “I learned a lot, but it was tough because I only know one way to do something and that’s with as much effort as I can give,” she says. And here’s the thing about this mountain the sisterhood was taking on. Like mountains everywhere, it’s not fair. It does not care about your life lessons, your hopes, your dreams, your accomplishments, even your prayers. Voters may or may not make it to the polls. A singing frog might be a huge draw to voters and if you’re on the other side, well, sorry. But together, they believed. They made a plan for victory that brought together all their life lessons. Stronger together they had one quest: a clean sweep of their races, ushering in a new, much more inclusive and open era throughout Houston’s courts. The 19 posed at Thurgood Marshall’s mock courtroom after the primary election in black-and-white outfits for an iconic photo arranged by the Harris County Democratic Party. The shot was publicized with the

Latosha Payne

slogan “Black Girl Magic,” and catalyzed young girls who hung the photo on their walls – as well as voters, who on Nov. 6, 2018, voted the 19 into office. Baldwin, Graves-Harrington, Finch, Jones, Bowman, Williams, Peake and Payne were newly elected alongside Judge Lucia Bates, Judge Sharon M. Burney, Judge Dedra Davis, Judge Linda Marie Dunson, Judge Lori Chambers Gray, Judge Cassandra Y. Holleman, Judge Erica Hughes, Judge Michelle Moore and Judge Germaine Tanner.

Together, they believed. They made a plan for victory that brought together all their life lessons. Stronger together they had one quest: a clean sweep of their races, ushering in a new, much more inclusive and open era throughout Houston’s courts. Rounding out the 19 were two incumbents who ran for statewide office and, though they lost those races, retained their Harris County posts: Judge Ramona Franklin was elected to that bench in 2016 and Judge Maria T. Jackson in 2008. Their victories increased the number of Black women judges in Harris County from eight to 25. “A picture says a thousand words,” says Hughes, who served four years as a JAG officer and in the Texas National Guard. She ran for Criminal Court at Law #3 because

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Tonya Jones

Lori Chambers Gray

she wanted to help with criminal justice reform, especially at a point when individuals were not yet charged with serious crimes. She also presided over the Veteran’s Court for all 16 misdemeanor courts. “The most meaningful thing is that our picture says a thousand words in our actions every day on the bench,” she says. We met the 19 in 2019, mesmerized initially by their unbelievable election sweep fueled by Black Girl Magic. After a long day in court, they made time to meet at Susman Godfrey’s Houston headquarters, with some arriving late because of verdicts or other administrative issues. And, instantly, we were taken by their breadth as individuals and professionals.

Chambers Gray knew all too well the loneliness of pursuing a legal career. In 1986, she graduated from South Texas College of Law and sought a job at a law firm. At the time, they were not sending gift baskets to recruits who were women or minorities. Already, one of the 19 was gone. Casandra Holleman was known for always taking care of everyone else. After her husband passed in 1992, she raised their daughter and son and took care of her mother, who had passed just the year before. Her daughter, Brandy, said how eager her Mom was to make an 78

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Ramona Franklin

impact on the judicial system – one she served until just days before she passed at the age of 57 on Feb. 11, 2019, from pancreatic cancer finally diagnosed just 10 days earlier. Brandy would drop her off at work as she could barely walk, so determined was Holleman to continue her Black Girl Magic. The 19 were as compelling for what they shared as their divergence. All Black women, all outstanding legal professionals, most also shared a strong faith and family orientation. Many had some type of competitive background, whether sports or debate, and a few had served in the military themselves or their family had. They ranged in age from late 30s to their 60s. While most were raised in Texas, more than a handful were from Florida and throughout the South. Throughout 2019, they proved their mettle and drew the fascinated gaze of little girls, some of whom stood on tippy toes to peer through their courtroom windows. That they looked different was so obvious, and part of the point, really. Appearances matter, and in their own lives, few had enjoyed professional role models who looked like them. “We’ve been able to be role models by just being on the bench,” says Graves-Harrington. “I’m so amazed at how astonished these young ladies, little girls and teenagers are when they say, ‘I’ve never seen a woman judge before, and you’re Black, or your hair’s just like mine.’ It’s an amazing feeling.” The youngest of the group – the “baby Judge” – wholeheartedly agrees. “Seeing someone in a role and being able to visualize yourself possibly being there, it makes a difference,” says Jones. “I say that as an inner-city kid with no one in my family who had

Sharon Burney

MIchelle Moore

Germaine Tanner

gone to college that I could look at and say, ‘Hey, I know I can do that.’ I just had a desire.”

graduated in 2002. Her dream was to be Cochran’s female counterpart in sports and entertainment law.

As a child, Jones happened on a photo of a Black woman judge in Essence magazine, from which she was able to visualize her goal. She reflects on that when she speaks to law students, who have been moved to tears. “They get to see in us what I saw when I opened that magazine up, which was someone who looks like them, somewhere where they aspire to be, and that makes all the difference.”

She began her career at the District Attorney’s Office, before opening her own practice, as had Cochran

Chambers Gray knew all too well the loneliness of pursuing a legal career. In 1986, she graduated from South Texas College of Law and sought a job at a law firm. At the time, they were not sending gift baskets to recruits who were women or minorities. So she returned to the radio station where she previously worked, and began to teach at Prairie View A&M. “But my heart was in the courtroom. And I knew if I was going to get there I would have to do it myself,” she says.

“It is important for lawyers and judges to have different, diverse backgrounds, because in your approach to the law, all of that comes into play. Of course, you still follow the law. But background plays a major role. It really does.” Sharon Burney in Los Angeles. It required a leap of faith, she says, recalling the Biblical account of Peter, whose faith allowed him to walk on water.

And she did, partnering with other lawyers, and eventually establishing her own practice in civil, criminal and “whatever came through the door” law. “My clients would have been a grandmother who may have had someone who was arrested, but then also needed a will. So I had to be able to be proficient in getting the whole package done,” says Chambers Gray. She was her best role model.

“I was put in a situation where I had to make the decision of what was best for me,” Franklin says. “And it was one of the best decisions that I’ve made because it brought a lot of different perspective for me as a judge, the fact that I’ve been able to have both perspectives, being a prosecutor as well as a defense attorney.”

Franklin found her north star in Johnnie Cochran. Growing up in St. Petersburg, Fla., she would practice her advocacy on her dolls, lined up neat and tidy. She knew one lawyer, a man who attended her church. From Florida A&M, she earned a master’s in sports administration then moved to Michigan to attend Thomas Cooley Law School, from which she

“We laughed when I finally went to law school because I said, ‘This is actually my second time,’” she recalls.

Burney was blessed with a role model a bit closer to home. Her mother, Zinetta, earned a GED and a nursing certificate after dropping out of high school, then continued her education until she became one of the first Black women lawyers in Houston.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“As a little girl with a mother who was a single parent, I had to sit in the back of the class and do my homework in the evenings and be with her.” Zinetta Burney succeeded U.S. Rep. Al Green as Justice of the Peace, and worked her whole life for the day there would be more women judges. In the sweep of the 19, Burney was elected Justice of the Peace for Precinct 17 and succeeded her own mother. Called Burney to the second power, Sharon Burney lives next door to Zinetta, and routinely takes her out for drives around town.

Providing justice for all is at the heart of Black Girl Magic, perhaps because they have seen so many cases of it denied throughout their lives. “I’m her individual legacy,” Burney says, “but being able to have these women judges, that is her legacy.” If magic is the how of the 19, change is the why. And it’s a tale that is still being written. On Nov. 8, we will learn if the next chapter is 19 steps forward and a few back, or if Black Girl Magic continues to uplift and transcend – at least in their current judicial posts. Magic, as it always does, lives on no matter what happens. But to hold it – and repeat – you must believe. Fifteen of the original 19 face reelection this fall; in addition to Holleman, Jackson has retired; Hughes was appointed a federal Immigration Judge, and Franklin’s term ends in 2024. They face Republican opponents ranging from former judges from different seats to private practitioners. There is also one rematch: Charley Prine wants his seat back from Graves-Harrington. It’s Texas, so turnout matters – a lot – and while gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke is a huge draw, so is the power of the incumbent Greg Abbott. It’s a battle of inspiration and extremism about the future of Texas that will define continued representation on the Harris County bench. “It is important for lawyers and judges to have different, diverse backgrounds, because in your approach to the law, all of that comes into play,” says Burney. “Of course, you still follow the law. But background plays a major role. It really does.” Graves-Harrington, who has been elected presid80

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ing judge of all Harris County’s Family Law Courts, says, “It helped us to appreciate every single one of our constituents because maybe there’s something that I couldn’t understand, but one of the other 19 could.” “I really believe, in my heart of hearts, that our benches, especially in Harris County, have to accurately reflect the people that we serve,” says Finch, who in July was elected the first African American female presiding judge of the Harris County Criminal Courts. She grew up a preacher’s kid in “The Bottom” section of Nashville. Her dream was to be a star in a WNBA that did not yet exist. Her mother worked in Education and became president of a college. And the family focus was on service. Finch started out in paralegal school after graduating college, then attended Thurgood Marshall. She became a Juvenile Public Defender because of her love for working with kids, and then moved to the Juvenile Division of the District Attorney’s office. She was mindful every day of the connection she saw between her father’s work as a pastor helping kids, and hers as a lawyer. “Seeing him advocate for people from the church’s perspective was instrumental in what I do today. Putting it all together made me realize that I could have a greater impact on the criminal justice system if I ran,” says Finch. In one of her last conversations with her father before he passed, he kept saying, “Toria, why don’t you do it?” She’s on the bench for reasons beyond guilt, innocence and dad. The simple humanity of presiding in cases with allegations that a defendant made racial statements, for example – slurs that are repeated as evidence before the judge. “If it’s a young person, whether they’re white, Black or Hispanic, it’s important to take time and try to help them. I like to say: ‘Hey, what do you need to be successful? Who told you that you couldn’t be?’ And I tell them that, ‘I expect you to be successful. As long as you’re coming to this court, I’m not giving up on you. Even if you give up on yourself.’” Covid-19 shut their courtrooms, which transitioned to Zoom, providing something closer to Franklin’s ideology of blindfold justice. Observing their court proceedings online underscored their efforts to ensure communication that allowed criminal defendants to actually understand their rights when pleading to a DUI, for instance, or family members to understand contested custody arrangements. Paying special attention to the plight of unrepresented parties has also been a focus.

Linda Marie Dunson

Dedra Davis

Sandra Peake

“I think we would get along better if we all wore blinders, instead of thinking, ‘Oh, I’m dealing with a male, or a white male or a Black male,’” she says. “If I have my blindfolds on, it doesn’t really matter. I only hear the voice.’”

it doesn’t mean that it’s going to dictate or has to dictate the rest of your life. I’m not so far removed from you because I have this robe on. Let me just tell you, I’ve had some experiences as well.’”

That was the idea, in fact, that motivated Franklin to run: Whether you’re rich or poor, Black or white, “it’s not going to matter in my court,” she says. “I want them to leave my court, whether they’re found guilty or not guilty, and believe they were treated fairly. I want someone – even someone who may not necessarily agree with my rulings – to really feel like, ‘You know what? She might not have ruled in my favor, but I truly believe that this judge was fair. I truly believe that she was fair to my attorney, to the state, to the defendant, as well as the victim and their family.’”

Providing justice for all is at the heart of Black Girl Magic, perhaps because they have seen so many cases of it denied throughout their lives. Brothers pulled over unlawfully, advice received to aim lower, justice more harsh than fair.

Jones, the youngest of the 19, grew up in the South Park neighborhood of Houston and originally wanted to be an obstetrician. But in school, debate came calling, from which mentors flowed. Nothing was ever easy, but her open nature and determination inspired opportunity. She took every lesson and internship from criminal to family law to hone a perspective that’s invaluable as a judge. “If any path was to be carved out, I had to do the carving,” says Jones. “It used to frustrate me, because I was like, ‘Geez, why are things so difficult?’” In her criminal courtroom, she found her answer. “I was able to see more clearly why I might have experienced some of the things that I experienced. Because you’re dealing with people and life happens, right? People whose lives intersect here come from all walks of life in our society. And they need to know that, ‘Hey, everyone’s story is not the same. Even though you may be in this particular place today,

Williams recalls the satisfaction of helping two older white men who had been best friends but fell out over a $65,000 dispute. The case had been rescheduled 12 times before she took the bench. She achieved resolution, and won gratitude for opening the door for their friendship to resume. She also presided over a bench trial where both attorneys were Black women, as was the defendant. “I don’t even remember the nature of the case, but when they walked in and the case was called, I remember that they were smiling, just beaming,” she recalls. “We handled the case and the defendant lost, but she was still all smiles,” Williams says. “One of them leaned in and whispered to me, ‘We are just so happy that you are here. We are so proud of you.’” Finch will always be a preacher’s daughter, so views her opportunity to serve on the bench from a spiritual foundation. “I understand that no one is perfect. Everyone has flaws and can use the help of somebody. And nothing is a coincidence,” she says. “For the people in my court, we’re meeting for a reason. And I want your life to be different just because of this encounter.” James Langford contributed to this article.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

A Guide to Litigation Finance Inspired by True Events

In a recent survey, 99% of lawyers ranked trust as one of the most important criteria in choosing a funder.

validityfinance.com

100

WE’RE PROUD TO INTRODUCE THE 2021 LAWDRAGON GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL FINANCE.

The 100 professionals recognized in this year’s guide are at the forefront of an industry that is expanding in ever more creative ways to help lawyers finance underdog cases, lengthy appeals, insolvency matters, patent portfolios and even entire litigation department dockets. This year’s honorees include longtime industry veterans from some of the world’s most established funds, as well as upstart financiers with an eye on opportunity and the financial rewards clever wagering can bring. The evolution of litigation finance was never more apparent than in the research and selection of this year’s guide. As ever, we rely on original research, submissions and vetting from peers and clients. New players are making their presence known as some stalwarts are shifting positions. Bubbling just below the surface are some of the most innovative legal finance thinkers on the planet who are creating new approaches sure to push the market further still. The guide is 30 percent female and 13 percent inclusive.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

COMPANY

Cindy Ahn

Longford Capital

Chicago

Maximillian Amster

Veridis

Tampa

Christine Azar

Burford Capital

New York

Jonathan Barnes

Woodsford Litigation Funding

London

Isabelle Berger

Nivalion

Steinhausen/Zug, Switzerland

Eric Blinderman

Therium Capital

New York

Christopher Bogart

Burford Capital

New York

Erik Bomans

Deminor

Luxembourg

Anastasia Bondarenko

Vannin Capital

Paris

Clive Bowman

Omni Bridgeway

Sydney

Simon Burnett

Balance Legal Capital

London

John Byrne

Therium Capital

London

Jiamie Chen

Parabellum Capital

New York

Dai Wai Chin Feman

Parabellum Capital

New York

Allison Chock

Omni Bridgeway

Los Angeles

Adrian Chopin

Bench Walk Advisors

London

Heather Collins

Omni Bridgeway

Sydney

Owen Cyrulnik

Curiam Capital

New York

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

CINDY AHN AS AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDYING BIOLOGY

at the University of Illinois, Cindy S. Ahn had no plans to become a lawyer and started her career at a lab bench at Abbott Laboratories, a multinational life sciences company based in Illinois. But after hearing regular talk among her co-workers about how significant patents could be to a company’s competitive position, she began mapping out a new direction for her career. Twenty-two years later, Ahn has no regrets about making the jump into IP law and, more recently, litigation finance. As a Director at Longford Capital, a private equity-styled-investment company that invests in meritorious commercial legal claims, Ahn’s experience litigating complex intellectual property matters has positioned her to assist countless firms and clients. With demand for Longford’s capital steadily on the rise, she stays busy. Longford Capital has attracted more than $1.2B in assets under management, making it one of the largest players in litigation finance. Though Covid-19 has changed much about the business of law, Ahn sees nothing but growth ahead for litigation finance. Lawdragon: What do you do at Longford Capital? Cindy Ahn: I’m a Director at Longford with my duties generally divisible into three main categories: due diligence, monitoring and business development. Due diligence involves analyzing the potential matters for funding. Monitoring requires me to keep up to date on the cases that Longford has funded. Business development, which is exactly what it says on the tin, involves reaching out to claim owners and counsel to educate them about litigation funding. LD: Tell us about your background. How did you come to litigation finance? CA: I think I came to litigation funding in the most circuitous fashion possible. At the beginning of my career, I practiced law in a boutique IP law firm and then moved to a general practice firm in its IP litigation department. From there, after several successful cases for an existing client, I was asked to join the client as its general counsel. It was while I was in-house that it was made clear to me that the adage is true – companies are not in business to litigate. Litigation is a distraction. It’s costly and the pressure in-house is immense.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

That company was eventually bought out, and I moved on to become a consultant for a medical device company before returning to a Chicago IP boutique law firm specializing in the monetization of patents. That’s where I met Mike Nicolas and Bill Farrell, who were just starting Longford. Mike and Bill reached out to me in 2017 after Longford had just closed its second fund for $500M. They realized they needed more help, and they knew they wanted to continue to fund IP cases, so they approached me. I couldn’t say no – and I’m so glad I didn’t. LD: What do you enjoy about your work? What is the most fulfilling aspect, or what do you find most rewarding? CA: I really like the fact that every case is different, which means I get the opportunity to consider new cases and arguments almost every day -- and work with top-tier attorneys. And because our due diligence is such an intense, in-depth dive, it’s intellectually satisfying, and never boring. This coupled with the fact that I no longer deal with discovery, meetand-confers, or the non-stop travel really makes this just about the best job I’ve had.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 LD: Why do law firms and claim owners bring their matters to Longford? CA: While not every case is right for funding, funding is something that every attorney and claim owner should consider. Even when the merits are on your side, the risks and the resource drain associated with litigation can be insurmountable. Litigation funding can help fund a claim when a company’s resources otherwise wouldn’t allow it. For example, when I was in-house, I was supervising multiple cases when my boss told me that if I blew my legal budget that year, Christmas bonuses would be in jeopardy. It was an awful thing to hear at the time but sitting where I am now, it underscores the value that litigation funding can offer, and could have offered me back then. As for why law firms and their clients come to Longford specifically, I think our people can’t be beat. Most of the team at Longford had over 20 years of experience as litigators or as senior executives before joining the firm. I think our experience and work ethic really shines through compared to others that may not have the breadth or depth of the same talent. Our success is evident in the fact that we have many repeat clients, and people who didn’t get funding from us the first time often approach us multiple times. Money is the definition of a fungible good, so they shouldn’t care where they go. But they do. LD: What sorts of problems are clients and law firms bringing forward now? How do you help solve them? CA: Clients and law firms are approaching us with very personalized/unique situations. And even though we have more than $1.2B of assets under management, we are philosophically a small organization. Because of that, we get to be creative, and flexible and we’re not hamstrung by a lot of red tape. So if for example, a client needs revenue right away, we can suggest claims monetization. We are flexible when it comes to crafting solutions that will be best suited to the claim owners as well as the law firms. LD: What are some other innovative options available at Longford that folks may not think of? You mentioned monetization. CA: Monetization is certainly a big one, and many claim owners have taken advantage of this option. Monetization is where we make a lump-sum payment or series of payments directly to a client in exchange for a portion of the client’s future litigation recovery, if any.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

A newer one is what we refer to as an umbrella agreement, which was inspired by conversations we’ve had with law firms about business development and client service, as well as our own experiences in Big Law. Our umbrella agreements employ creative techniques to help lawyers deal with that issue. LD: You’ve talked about how being a general counsel informs your work. What about your time at law firms? CA: I think that shared experiences can really help cement a relationship. When lawyers come to us with potential matters because my colleagues and I have decades of experience in that same environment, we absolutely understand and speak the same language. This not only helps us regarding legal aspects of a case but also with any logistical issues as our extensive private practice experience allows us to quickly identify and understand what concerns firms may have, if any, especially if it’s a first-time funding experience. LD: What trends, if any, do you see coming out of the pandemic? CA: Law, in general, is a read-and-write kind of profession. From a litigation funding point of view, I think that the pandemic has not forced very many changes over the past 18 months. If anything, people were more open to pursuing litigation finance than they have been in the past. But certainly, I have observed some day-to-day practices that have changed in the practice of law. Remote depositions, hearings and witness preparation that are now common would have never been accepted in a pre-Covid world. I think that will continue when we eventually emerge from the pandemic. LD: In your view, what distinguishes Longford from other providers of litigation finance? CA: It’s absolutely the people. No doubt. And that sounds incredibly trite and cliché, but I do not hesitate to say that I think our team is world-class. Moreover, at Longford, a director is with our claim owners and attorneys every step of the way, from first introductory conversation, through due diligence, papering the deal, monitoring and ultimately to final resolution. This is structured to mirror our philosophy that we are partners with the claim owners and attorneys we work with. As a result, we are as invested as our clients in each matter we shepherd through and ultimately, this makes us better partners.

100

LAINA HAMMOND

BY JAMES LANGFORD

HUGO BLACK, THE JUSTICE WHO WROTE

the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision requiring states to provide free attorneys for accused criminals too poor to pay legal fees, once mused that justice is nonexistent when “the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” But nearly 60 years after that revolution in criminal court procedure, money is still a significant a barrier in civil cases. Some individuals, lacking cash and absent a lawyer who will take their case on contingency, don’t even bring their claims to court. That recurring dilemma is what prompted Laina Hammond to move from a 16-year career as a commercial trial lawyer, most recently at the boutique firm Shipley Snell Montgomery, to the developing field of litigation finance. “One of the things I had seen in my practice was how burdensome and expensive litigation was for clients of all sizes,” she explains. “Even the largest companies never seemed to have enough in their budget for litigation, and certainly for plaintiff’s-side litigation. Companies were routinely passing up opportunities to enforce their legal rights because they just didn’t have the money in the budget to do it.” From that vantage point, Hammond’s work as investment manager and head of the Houston office for New York-based litigation financier Validity isn’t so much a career change as a progression. It requires leveraging her experience as a trial lawyer to weigh the merits of cases and set up deals that give businesses and law firms the capital they need to pursue viable ones. “We are in the unique position of partnering with both the lawyers and the litigants on these cases,” Hammond says. “We go through the ups and downs of the cases right alongside them.” A concept that developed in Australia and parts of Europe, where the contingency-fee arrangements popular in the U.S. weren’t available, litigation finance spread to the U.S. in the mid-2000s and garnered increasing interest during the financial crisis as investors sought ways to generate returns on cash while minimizing the risk from market turmoil.

ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD SEEN IN MY PRACTICE WAS HOW BURDENSOME AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION WAS FOR CLIENTS OF ALL SIZES. COMPANIES WERE ROUTINELY PASSING UP OPPORTUNITIES TO ENFORCE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY JUST DIDN’T HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO DO IT.

Validity, founded in 2018 by CEO Ralph Sutton, countered the inﬂuence of Wall Street, which tended to

PHOTO BY DAVID LUBARSKY

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

IN MY CURRENT ROLE, I USE THE SAME SKILL SET AS I DID IN MY TRIAL PRACTICE, BUT IT’S DEFINITELY A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING ABOUT CASES. WHEN I USED TO LITIGATE CASES, I WOULD THINK ABOUT MERITS AND DAMAGES. AS A FUNDER, I AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE ECONOMICS. focus solely on returns, with a business model more akin to that of law firms, focused on serving clients and building a reputation incrementally. “Our business is based on relationships, not cases,” Hammond explains. “While we of course fund individual litigations, where we really provide value is in a long-term relationship with a client.” That often means working with claimants or law firms to fund a portfolio of cases that builds over time. That arrangement has not only helped Validity grow, says Hammond, “it has also allowed us to establish lasting, trusting relationships with terrific lawyers and companies.” Lawdragon: You’ve talked about your motivation for moving into litigation finance. Tell me a little more about how it happened. Was there a specific occurrence or person who convinced you the time had come for a change? Laina Hammond: Our CEO, Ralph Sutton, made a compelling case. I was enjoying a successful litigation practice, but he showed me how exciting it could be to help clients in a different way. When we started three years ago, litigation finance was a cutting-edge industry, and I was enthusiastic about not just building a company, but really helping to develop litigation funding in Houston, where it was still a nascent industry. LD: It’s interesting that you’ve encountered businesses of all sizes refraining from filing legal claims because of funding, partly because we hear more often about that being an issue in large class-action cases with lots of small clients who have very limited resources. For firms attempting to take that on, it’s easy to imagine it being a huge cash drain until – and unless – you win the case. LH: Right. And funding is definitely still used for those kinds of class actions. Our company doesn’t fund a lot of class-action suits, particularly ones brought by classes of individual consumers, because they are

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

outside our primary focus on funding business-tobusiness commercial disputes. But it’s no secret that litigation costs money and time. A lot of money and time. And many companies, regardless of their size, can’t afford a long, expensive court case. We enable companies to take on bigger, better-capitalized companies. We like knowing that we are helping even the playing field a bit, allowing cases to be resolved based on the strength of the claims, not based on who has more money to pay for better lawyers and experts. LD: That makes sense. It evens the odds between David and Goliath. LH: Yes. And particularly in Texas, more and more companies of all sizes are seeing litigation finance as a way to share the risk and financial burdens of cases and better manage their legal budgets. It’s not just limited to cash-strapped companies. Some well-capitalized organizations use funding in order to focus their spending on more profitable core business areas. The less money they need to allocate to their legal budget, the more they can spend on things that will grow their business. LD: Right. Into retaining customers or paying employees, for instance. LH: And business concerns about how cash is used tend to be pronounced and heightened during times of economic distress or uncertainty. LD: Speaking of that, has Covid made a big difference in the number or types of companies seeking litigation funding? LH: I think it has prompted certain companies to consider funding that might not otherwise have thought about it, companies that may not have access to the same amount and types of liquidity or traditional financing that they have available in different economic times. So while we saw an uptick in funding opportunities, it didn’t change things for Validity

100

very much. We still approach the process with the same rigor and are funding the same types of cases at the same investment levels that we always have. LD: How did you decide to focus on this particular lane of litigation funding: commercial and, specifically, medium-size and smaller businesses? LH: Our investment team is entirely made up of former trial lawyers with significant experience practicing commercial litigation, so commercial litigation funding is a natural fit for our expertise. We’re able to efficiently evaluate cases when we’re familiar with the subject matter. Also, from a business perspective, we’re deliberately choosing to enter into funding transactions with other sophisticated parties that understand all of the various risks and benefits of the deal. In the consumer space, there’s arguably a bargaining disparity that we prefer to avoid. LD: Once a business decides to take advantage of litigation funding and approaches Validity, how does the process work? LH: We fund primarily in two main ways: on a singlecase basis and on a portfolio basis. In the single case transaction, we are providing money directly to, and contracting directly with, the litigant. Typically, the funding is used to pay a certain portion of the fees and costs of a particular piece of litigation, based on a reasonable budget determined by trial counsel. In exchange, the litigant agrees to give us a negotiated return on our investment that comes only from the proceeds of that case. The second way that we fund is through law firm portfolios. In those transactions, instead of contracting with the litigant, we contract with the law firm. When we do that, we’re providing capital to the law firm that it can use for any purpose. Typically, law firms use the funding to provide fee discounts or alternative fee arrangements to their clients. In portfolio funding transactions, we receive a return on our investment only from the contingent fees that the firm collects on a basket of cases that are part of the portfolio. We have no contractual right to receive a return from other firm assets. Sometimes the portfolio is open-ended so that more cases can be added and more funding can be added over time, but we usually start with some identified set of cases. The main difference to us is that with a single case, we have to evaluate whether that one claim is likely to generate a sufficient return to repay us. With a portfolio, the cases are cross-collateralized. Any one

of them might provide a return on our investment, so the risk is spread out. That makes it a relatively safer investment for us, which means we can offer better terms. LD: Very interesting. It offers a window into a side of litigation you seldom see portrayed on movies or in television. How much of a departure is what you’re doing from what you envisioned your career would be when you went to law school? Usually, the skills and interests that prompt people to choose the law as a career are very different from those of bankers. LH: In my current role, I use the same skill set as I did in my trial practice, but it’s definitely a different way of thinking about cases. When I used to litigate cases, I would think about merits and damages. As a funder, I am also concerned with the economics: How much will this case cost the client to bring, start to finish? How much is the case likely to generate in settlement or judgment? But at the end of the day, I’m a lawyer, and all the experience I gained during my 16 years litigating cases comes into play when I’m evaluating the strengths and risks of a case. I have perspective on judges and lawyers. I have insight into things like how much a defendant is likely to pay in settlement and at what point in the case that is likely to happen. I’ve transitioned my skills – not retired them! LD: What advice would you offer someone thinking about this as a career field? LH: First, be honest with yourself about what you love about the law. Are you going to miss going to court and arguing a case? Funders play an important part in litigation, but it’s definitely more of a backseat role. You’re analyzing cases, maybe advising on them, but you’re not controlling them. So you have to be able to get to that point where you’re comfortable investing in a case when you don’t get to drive the train. Another piece of advice is to keep an open mind! It can be easy to get jaded and cynical in the legal industry, but litigation finance rewards those who are curious and receptive, as well as critical in their thinking. When you’re evaluating a case, it may initially not seem like a good fit. But once you dig in, some things that don’t seem promising at first glance turn out to be very much so. Of course, the opposite can also be true, so the lesson is trust your instincts but try not to pre-judge too quickly.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

COMPANY

Robin Davis

Woodsford Litigation Funding

New York

Marla Decker

Lake Whillans

New York

Christopher DeLise

Delta Capital Partners

Chicago

Patrick Dempsey

Therium Capital

New York

Matthew Denney

Litigation Capital Management

London

David Desser

Juris Capital

Chicago

Kirstin Dodge

Nivalion

Steinhausen/Zug, Switzerland

Lee Drucker

Lake Whillans

New York

Joe Dunn

Fortress Investment Group

New York

Susan Dunn

Harbour

London

Timothy Farrell

Longford Capital

Chicago

William Farrell

Longford Capital

Chicago

James Foster

Litigation Capital Management

London

Steven Friel

Woodsford Litigation Funding

London

David Gallagher

The D.E. Shaw Group

New York

John Garda

Longford Capital

Dallas

Oliver Gayner

Omni Bridgeway

Sydney

Julia Gewolb

Validity Finance

New York

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

KIRSTIN DODGE AMONG THE REWARDS OF WORKING IN

litigation finance for Kirstin Dodge is the ability to assess a large number of different cases that other lawyers will spend months or years litigating. In fact, it’s that zest for diversity of experience – a desire to try “something new” – that led Dodge to litigation finance after 25 years as a big firm litigator in the United States and then Switzerland, where she remains based. Earlier this year, Dodge joined European firm Nivalion AG as the leader of its Americas group – a position that provides exciting new challenges while also returning to her U.S. commercial litigation roots. Lawdragon: Can you talk a little bit about Nivalion AG and the services it provides? Kirstin Dodge: Nivalion AG is one of Europe’s leading providers of litigation and arbitration finance and also offers legal finance solutions in the United States, Canada, Latin America and Asia-Pacific. Nivalion supports parties in the pursuit of strong arbitration and litigation claims and defenses by underwriting all costs of the proceedings, including adverse cost risk. We focus on funding business-to-business disputes, including complex commercial litigation and arbitration, patent infringement litigation and investment treaty disputes. We also fund antitrust proceedings, insolvency litigation and collective consumer actions. We work closely with clients and their legal counsel during the time we are assessing the strength of claims and deciding whether to provide funding. Once a case or case portfolio has been accepted for funding, Nivalion’s experienced legal and financial teams are available to clients and their counsel as a resource, but Nivalion does not interfere with case strategy, management or decision making. LD: How did you first become interested in litigation finance? KD: I became aware of the litigation financing industry over a decade ago after I started working for a Swiss law firm, when I was involved in seeking funding for a client’s case. I followed developments casually after that, and then with more focus when I co-authored the chapter on

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

Switzerland for the comprehensive Handbook on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration. Two of my former law firm colleagues eventually landed at Nivalion, providing me with further insights from the funder perspective. The more I learned about litigation finance, the more convinced I became that it would provide an excellent opportunity to combine and apply my years of experience as a U.S. commercial litigator and as an international arbitration practitioner within a business and finance setting. LD: What do you like about this type of work? KD: It has been very interesting to return to my roots as a U.S. litigator, getting back up to speed on recent developments in civil procedure as well as the substantive areas of law at issue in the matters we consider funding. It is also satisfying to be able to apply my years of experience in international commercial and treaty arbitrations in assessing a wide variety of cases – quite a change after spending years focusing on a small number of cases at a time as they proceed from the filing of the arbitration request to the evidentiary hearing and post-hearing briefs. I enjoy meeting and discussing cases with potential clients, their

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

PARTIES AND LAWYERS WHO ARE SEEKING LITIGATION FINANCING SHOULD BE PREPARED TO “SELL” THE MATTER WITH A SOLID CASE ANALYSIS (INCLUDING QUANTUM AND ENFORCEABILITY), A CONVINCING LITIGATION STRATEGY AND A REALISTIC ESTIMATED BUDGET. legal counsel and the external experts Nivalion retains to assist us in our due diligence prior to agreeing to fund a matter. LD: Please discuss your career path. What earlier led to an interest in litigation? KD: While in law school, I had little interest in joining a corporate law firm. After a U.S. Federal District Court clerkship, I went to a small law firm that specialized in bringing discrimination claims. That gave me the chance to immediately second-chair trials, but I eventually missed the breadth of cases I had seen while clerking. I also had significant undergraduate and law school debt. The result was what I thought would be a couple of years in the commercial litigation group of a large firm, but I quickly found that I loved the work, my colleagues and our clients. I stayed, became a partner, and would have remained if not for personal circumstances (a binational relationship) that motivated me to look for work in Switzerland. As an experienced U.S. litigator, I found my skills were in demand at a large Swiss law firm that had a thriving international arbitration practice, with many cases involving U.S. or UK opposing counsel. Again, I found I loved the work, and I stayed. Yet after over a decade working in international arbitration, I realized I was not ready to end my career without trying something new. Litigation finance – as Head of the Americas for Nivalion – was a perfect next step, allowing me to combine the experience and skills gained throughout my career. LD: What advice do you have now for current students or young professionals? KD: Keep in mind that your career will span decades. Long-term goals may require experience

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

that can only be gained by accepting positions you may not think are an ideal fit. Alternatively, a position you think may not be ideal may surprise you, either because it turns out to be a good fit or because it opens doors to new opportunities you had not considered. Even if you don’t see yourself working in a law firm forever, hands-on experience in the trenches will likely be invaluable in later in-house legal or corporate positions, including in litigation finance. LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside advisor? KD: Litigation funders lose their investment if the case does not succeed, so a case has to be strong to be eligible for funding. Parties and lawyers who are seeking litigation financing should be prepared to “sell” the matter with a solid case analysis (including quantum and enforceability), a convincing litigation strategy and a realistic estimated budget. This may require retaining technical or damages experts prior to obtaining funding, for example in patent infringement cases. Applicants should also welcome probing questions: The process sometimes reveals weaknesses in the case or issues that had not been considered while there is still time to remedy them. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? KD: In my daily life, I enjoy cooking or gardening after a day spent in front of a computer screen. A perfect winter weekend includes Alpine skiing or snowshoeing. In the summer, you’ll find me swimming in a nearby lake or in the Aare river under the Swiss Parliament building in Berne.

100

JUSTIN MALESON SINCE JOINING LONGFORD CAPITAL AS A

Director in 2018, Justin Maleson has had a front row seat to observe the dramatic growth and expansion of the litigation funding industry. With general acceptance of funding continuing to trend upward across the legal community, Maleson expects even more widescale adoption and continued innovation over the next decade. He sees Longford as one of the true pioneers and leading innovators in the industry, and is thrilled about the creativity and developments Longford is driving today. Maleson believes that industry growth and adoption is being propelled in large part by the versatility of funding, seeing it as a Swiss Army-style tool that can be used in a wide variety of situations to solve a wide range of problems. Maleson himself is similarly versatile, having spent nearly a decade at Jenner & Block litigating a broad spectrum of cases. Practicing primarily as a defense lawyer also provided him a unique perspective for evaluating and identifying what makes a good case for funding. In addition, his marketing background makes him particularly well-suited to the non-legal aspects of the litigation ﬁnance business, with his current role placing him squarely at the intersection of business and law. Lawdragon: You’ve been at Longford for three-anda-half years now, after nearly a decade in Big Law. Is it everything you expected?

Justin Maleson: My move from private practice to a private investment fund executing a new investment strategy was a big career move, and it has actually exceeded my expectations. So much of that is because of the people. I know that sounds cliché, but it’s true. Across the board, we have an incredibly unselﬁsh, talented, creative and supportive team. We’re a very close-knit group and we genuinely like each other, which I think comes across when we’re speaking with folks outside the company. I’m very fortunate to love what I do and believe that’s largely because of how much I genuinely like, respect, care for and enjoy being around the members of our team. On top of that, the work itself is incredibly exciting and fun, and because the industry is still relatively new, there’s a lot of room for innovation and discovery. That really excites me. I like being challenged

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

and I enjoy solving problems. And rarely a day goes by where I’m not faced with a new challenge, or an unanswered question, or a new problem to solve. From my first day at Longford, I’ve been encouraged and given the space to be creative and bold, and I’ve taken that to heart. It’s a perfect fit for me – the work is exciting, the culture is supportive and encouraging, and I love our team. LD: What types of law firms do you typically work with, and what types of matters do you fund? JM: It runs the gamut. We’re partnered with some of the biggest firms in the country. We regularly work with AmLaw 50, 100 and 200 firms. But we also work with litigation boutiques, regional powerhouses and mid-sized firms. Since the pandemic, we’ve seen a spike in inquiries and use of funding among firms. In terms of the types of cases, I focus primarily on antitrust matters and other commercial litigations and arbitrations with at least $25M in damages. For the commercial bucket – which is very broad – think breach of contract, fraud, other business torts, trade secrets misappropriation, insurance disputes and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

ACCEPTANCE AND UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDING WILL CONTINUE TO GROW ACROSS THE LEGAL COMMUNITY. THAT’S ALREADY HAPPENING, AND THE TREND WILL CERTAINLY CONTINUE. LITIGATION FUNDING IS PROBABLY CONSIDERED MAINSTREAM ALREADY, BUT WITHIN 10 YEARS, I EXPECT THAT CLASSES ON LITIGATION FUNDING WILL BECOME COMMONPLACE AT LAW SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. pretty much any other type of B2B disputes. I also focus heavily on international arbitrations, including both commercial and investor-state cases. LD: Why do you think law firms and claim owners bring their matters to Longford? JM: The answer to that question differs depending on the firm or company, but much of it comes down to relationships and how we communicate with and treat the people we’re working with. We’re sincere, transparent and plain-spoken. I believe that resonates with people and it is a huge part of the reason we have such a strong track record of repeat clients. Another reason law firms and companies bring cases to Longford is that we put in the work. When we’re presented with a case, we roll up our sleeves, get into the weeds, learn the case inside and out, and ask tough questions. Because we’re hyper-selective and reject most cases presented to us, it’s incredibly important that we add value along the way. That’s a big part of why so many of the matters we’ve funded were brought to us by attorneys who previously presented cases that we had to decline. LD: When you’re brought a new claim by either a law firm or by a claim owner, what questions do you ask? JM: The specific diligence questions change from case-to-case, but as a general matter, we focus on liability/merits, defenses, damages and collectability. There’s obviously more to it than that, but in broad strokes, those are the pillars we focus on.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

When I was in private practice, most of my work was on the defense side. So, when I evaluate a case, that’s the lens I’m looking through. I always try to put myself in defense counsel’s shoes and try to figure out how the defense is likely to attack and poke holes in the plaintiff’s case. By isolating and evaluating the primary risk factors, I’m able to better assess the case’s overarching risk profile. Fundamentally, I also believe it’s important to be pragmatic when evaluating cases. For example, economics are obviously critical for purposes of understanding the range and likelihood of potential outcomes. Big damages numbers are fine to discuss, but because a plaintiff won’t get to the high-end of the damages range without going to trial, and most cases don’t go to trial, it’s important for me to understand the realistic potential settlement range, the realistic timeline and off-ramps in the litigation lifecycle where settlement discussions could take place, and the claim owner’s expectations. Economics is just one of many factors to consider because, not surprisingly, there’s a significant amount of information to process and evaluate when deciding whether to invest in a case. Because nothing happens in a vacuum, it’s important to keep everything in perspective and in the context of how each piece of information fits into the bigger picture. LD: Earlier this year, Longford and Willkie Farr & Gallagher publicly announced a $50M funding arrangement. Does the public announcement of your relationship with Willkie signal a shift to-

100

ward greater acceptance of the industry among Big Law?

LD: Where do you see litigation ﬁnance headed over the next 10 years?

JM: It’s important to distinguish between Big Law’s acceptance and use of funding, and the decision to publicly announce the use of funding. Awareness and acceptance of funding has become much more prevalent among Big Law and has continued to grow since I started at Longford in 2018. I’ve seen that ﬁrsthand.

JM: There’s much greater awareness among law ﬁrms and companies than when I joined Longford in 2018, but as I mentioned before, because the funding industry is still relatively young in comparison to other asset classes, there is still a lot of room for innovation and discovery. For example, I expect to see continued development of defense funding offerings as the industry continues to expand and evolve. I also expect more states to follow Arizona’s lead in allowing non-lawyer ownership of law ﬁrms, with several other states currently exploring the issue, and many others likely to follow. That will certainly impact the funding industry.

With respect to Big Law publicly embracing funding, the Willkie announcement was an important moment, and I suspect that we have paved the way for other firms to publicly embrace funding. It may already be happening; I saw that Harbour recently announced the launch of a new litigation funding venture with Mishcon de Reya. There will be more to come. LD: How do you apply the way you think about cases, and the criteria you apply to evaluating them, in the context of Longford’s relationship with Willkie Farr? JM: One of the best things about working with Willkie is that we understand and know how each other work because, before joining Longford, I spent nearly 10 years working closely with Craig Martin, the Midwest chair of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and the talented team of lawyers he’s assembled at Willkie. As a result, I know how detail-oriented and discerning they are, and how they work up cases. So, while my diligence process doesn’t change when I’m evaluating cases presented by Willkie as opposed to other firms, there’s a unique level of confidence and trust stemming from our years together, which certainly helps the process.

More generally, acceptance and understanding of funding will continue to grow across the legal community. That’s already happening, and the trend will certainly continue. Litigation funding is probably considered mainstream already, but within 10 years, I expect that classes on litigation funding will become commonplace at law schools across the country. LD: Litigation ﬁnance can be arcane and sophisticated. Still, it’s different from being a partner at a law ﬁrm. Would you say that the professional transition to Longford has had a positive impact on you?

LD: In what other ways would you say Longford has been innovative, or pushed the envelope in litigation ﬁnance?

JM: Absolutely, it’s been very rewarding all around. Before joining Longford, I’d spent my entire career at Jenner, going all the way back to when I was a summer associate. When I decided to make the move to Longford, it was a big change going from a 400+ attorney law ﬁrm to a 20-person litigation funder. It ended up being a perfect ﬁt for me, and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. And as I said before, so much of that is because of the people, which really matters when it comes down to day-to-day enjoyment.

JM: When Longford was founded, it was one the first litigation funders in the United States. There were funders in other countries, but litigation finance was incredibly novel here in the United States. When I look back at the company’s early funding deals, and compare them to what we’re doing today, it’s remarkable how far things have come. Longford started with single-case investments, and expanded to pioneering law firm portfolios, monetizations, business development funding and novel defense funding products. Longford is one of the true pioneers and leading innovators in the industry, and, on a personal level, having the opportunity to contribute to and drive innovation is wonderfully fulfilling.

Also, I love being a lawyer, but I’m not spilling any secrets when I say there are aspects of practicing law that I don’t miss, like billing time and dealing with discovery ﬁghts. Working in litigation ﬁnance, I get to focus on the fun stuff – digging into the core of the cases and understanding counsel’s micro and macro level strategies – while avoiding some of the more mundane parts of practice. I’m a hyper-competitive person and have always enjoyed the competitive aspects of practicing law. So, do I miss being in court and taking depositions? Yes, of course, but I still get to experience a lot of the same highs and get the same rush from selecting and investing in cases, and then going along for the ride.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

COMPANY

LOCATION

Adam Gill

GLS Capital

Chicago

Tom Glasgow

Omni Bridgeway

Singapore

Stuart Grant

Bench Walk Advisors

Wilmington, Del.

Chris Hagale

Lake Whillans

New York

Laina Hammond

Validity Finance

Houston

Oliver Hayes

Balance Legal Capital

London

Rosemary Ioannou

Vannin Capital

London

Sarah Johnson

The D.E. Shaw Group

New York

Aaron Katz

Parabellum Capital

New York

Jim Kearney

Lake Whillans

New York

David Kerstein

Validity Finance

New York

Mark King

Harbour

London

Thomas Kohlmeier

Nivalion

Munich

Elizabeth Korchin

Therium Capital

New York

Zachary Krug

Woodsford Litigation Funding

London

Christoph Kuzaj

Therium Capital

Duesseldorf

John Lazar

Burford Capital

New York

Alex Lempiner

Woodsford Litigation Funding

Spring House, Pa.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

TIMOTHY MAYER

BY JAMES LANGFORD

THERE ARE TIMES, TIMOTHY MAYER CONCEDES, when he misses the cut and thrust of a courtroom skirmish, the adrenalin rush, the wielding of logical and linguistic agility to outduel the opposition. Especially when the stakes are high. But then the U.K. barrister realizes, once again, that litigation finance – the industry he’s now worked in for a longer period of time than he spent practicing law – offers the same thrill, albeit in a boardroom rather than a courtroom. “You still have the cut and thrust of presenting in terms of your investment committee, the cut and thrust of negotiating a variation in the deal because there are some pressure points on the economics of the case you’re funding,” says the London-based senior investment officer at Therium Capital Management. “And you’ve got very, very clever lawyers in front of you. You’ve very clever clients from a financial background. So you are always on your toes.” Mayer has advised on claims valued at more than USD15 billion at Therium, a firm organized in 2009 that’s now one of the world’s oldest litigation funders and boasts business on five continents. Entering the industry when it was still in its infancy in the U.K. has afforded him singular influence on its development. Mayer served as a director of the Association of Litigation Funders of England, an early - and voluntary - self-regulatory group, and was a member of the Third-Party Funding Working Party that drafted the Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders in England and Wales after Lord Justice Rupert Jackson’s review of civil suit costs in 2010. “I was quite lucky, really, because the funding market was a really new place,” he says. “There were very few players, and of course that leads to all sorts of positives in terms ofyour exposure. You’re building your reputation because you’re involved in so much.” Today, the industry’s growth has surpassed even his wildest expectations, mushrooming from a business that underwrote simple disputes for parties that lacked the funds to bring suit on their own to a sophisticated provider of funds for huge, multiclaimant cases with a variety of financing models.

PHOTO BY DOUGLAS FRY

“One of the reasons there are more of these cases now, is not simply because defendants are misbehaving more than they ever did, it’s because there are means available for claimants to bring their claims and to spread their risk,” Mayer says. “Along with the claimants and the skilled lawyers specialized in their particular fields, we’re pushing the envelope to develop a system which one hopes will deliver access to justice.” Lawdragon: The industry really has leveled the playing field for plaintiffs. Tell me what drew you into the law in the first place. Did you know lawyers growing up? Why did you go to law school? Timothy Mayer: I didn’t know any lawyers in the family. My father was a professor, my mum was a teacher, and my grandparents had either been down the pit [miners], or delivered agricultural products around the North Midlands’ countryside. I did OK at school and, I don’t remember why, but I thought that law might be quite interesting. And then of course, as soon as you have the idea, there are always helpful contacts locally who can help you in terms of your career. You can spend time with them, which is what I did. We have a bifurcated legal system in England, with barristers being specialist advocates, and solicitors managing cases on a day-to-day basis. I went down the advocacy route and spent most of my time in court, arguing cases. And I turned my hand to a broad range of commercial disputes for all sorts of different clients.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

TODAY, THE INDUSTRY’S GROWTH HAS SURPASSED EVEN HIS WILDEST EXPECTATIONS, MUSHROOMING FROM A BUSINESS THAT UNDERWROTE SIMPLE DISPUTES FOR PARTIES THAT LACKED THE FUNDS TO BRING SUIT ON THEIR OWN TO A SOPHISTICATED PROVIDER OF FUNDS FOR HUGE, MULTI-CLAIMANT CASES WITH A VARIETY OF FINANCING MODELS. I’d been doing that probably for about 10 years, I think, when I saw an advert in a professional publication saying, “Litigation funding, looking for an in-house barrister,” and I thought, “Ooh, it sounds interesting.” It was right at the beginning really, of the industry in the U.K. It had been around of course, in Australia and, funnily enough, in central Europe, particularly in Germany. And it was a German funder – a division of Allianz, the large insurance company - that I was talking to that wanted to support a business that it had just set up in the U.K., in London. The rest, as they say, is history. I later moved to Therium, and I will have been here for seven years in October. Because the industry was small, I became known and was co-opted onto the board of the Association of Litigation Funders. I did that for a number of years and, oddly enough, met Neil Purslow, one of Therium’s founders. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time and was learning as I went. LD: The association seems like, in hindsight, such a good idea, because of the various interests that were pushing litigation funding at the time. I really do think that it paved the road nicely for what’s now such a booming business. TM: Yes, it was sensible. One, we had to do it because the Ministry of Justice wanted us to do so, but it was pioneering, because there was no equivalent around the globe, nothing in Australia, nothing in Europe. LD: From the U.S. perspective, it conferred more legitimacy on the U.K. funders and helped propel litigation ﬁnance to its current popularity in the U.S. TM: There’s a constant positioning required, because at the end of the day, the funders, whether they’re fund managers or whether they are the funds themselves who are investing in disputes, are looking to make a return for investors.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The Jackson Review, of course, talked about the benefits of funding and acknowledged that funding was important to facilitate access to justice. There was a very positive air around funding at the time. While funding is still recognized as a part of the litigation landscape here, more recently there’s been a shift in the judicial perception, an acknowledgment that access to justice is not the primary driver of a fund investing in a dispute. It’s about making a return on investment. And that influences the Court on occasion. LD: It is interesting that litigation funding certainly increases access to justice at the same time it is premised on making a financial return. Is there a tension? TM: Are they competing? No, I don’t think they are, but you can’t view access to justice solely through that lens. You have to accept that funders are looking for a return. The problem is that if that aspect of funding becomes the main focus, then of course, people start to get worried about control and whether the funders are influencing the management of the dispute and will unreasonably impose their views on settlement. These are all points that have been taken by the likes of the U.S. Chamber, who appear to be very worried – wrongly in my view – about the impact of funding without really strict regulation. That’s just the nature of the beast, and you’ll always have to deal with those arguments. But, frankly, when I think of the kind of disputes that Therium is funding now, in the U.K. and in Europe and the U.S., it underpins the access-to-justice argument, especially in securities litigation, in competition and antitrust claims and consumer litigation. The issues at stake in cases such as the Volkswagen emissions scandal, data-breach claims and so forth are not really economically viable when you’ve got just one claimant; they have to be run on a ‘class’

100

basis. The funders are taking a signiﬁcant risk, not only in terms of the cases themselves and whether they win or lose, but also because, for instance in our jurisdiction, you have an incipient class-action process which is being developed, unlike in say the United States or Australia, to a lesser extent. We’ve seen cases where the judiciary has pushed back on using certain procedural rules as a means to bring class-actions. So, of course it’s peaks and troughs. We’ve suffered a few losses.

the investors on the other. You’re reporting to your

investors. You’re talking to your investors.

Some are relatively passive, others want to be involved a little more. And understandably they will

have their own preferences and risk appetite. They will have their own committees to report to. So you

have to be on your mettle. I think it helps, the fact that I have the experience I have. And I suppose

that’s why I sit where I do in the business, because

LD: Can you tell me a little bit about your focus at Therium now and the kinds of cases that you’re overseeing or managing?

I’m able to deal with all of the issues and all the

TM: I’m a Senior Investment Ofﬁcer. My experience in the market sees me involved in all sorts of different claims. I do some class-action work, a sizeable chunk of international arbitration work, and insolvency and bankruptcy work, both in our jurisdiction and internationally.

funding has become in legal disputes?

At Therium, our approach is for individuals to take cases ‘from cradle to grave’, so to speak. I’m very much involved in deal origination, diligencing claims and structuring the funding, papering the deals, managing them through their lifespan, and then, of course, dealing with their – hopefully successful - conclusion. Given the nature of this asset class, the asset management can be very involved, whether it be cases needing more funding or defendants seeking security for costs from funders, when we’re actually involved in the dispute as a party for that purpose and have to respond appropriately. Of course, management also involves dealing with the clients and the lawyers on the one hand and

topics that I’ve just described, really.

LD: Are you surprised at how important litigation

TM: It’s been quite a journey. In the beginning, it was pretty much single cases, maybe one or two

defendants on the other side, but generally you might have just a bilateral dispute, one claimant and one

defendant. Now, in terms of the class-action system, it has driven new rules and the funding is vital to the learning in that particular area. So that’s a complete

sea change, I think. There’s a real maturity now about

the space there. I think, also, it’s more sophisticated.

You’re sitting behind a law ﬁrm. You’re funding the law ﬁrm. You’re sitting behind a corporate. You’ve

got a portfolio deal. It’s a combination of debt and

equity. And then it becomes a corporate ﬁnance tool. I’m more front and center on the disputes. When it’s

turning more into corporate ﬁnance, that’s a slightly

different area. But again, is it surprising? No, because

ﬁnance just deals with everything, doesn’t it?

AT THERIUM, OUR APPROACH IS FOR INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE CASES ‘FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE’, SO TO SPEAK. I’M VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN DEAL ORIGINATION, DILIGENCING CLAIMS AND STRUCTURING THE FUNDING, PAPERING THE DEALS, MANAGING THEM THROUGH THEIR LIFESPAN, AND THEN, OF COURSE, DEALING WITH THEIR – HOPEFULLY SUCCESSFUL - CONCLUSION. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

COMPANY

LOCATION

Cayse Llorens

LexShares

Boston

Andy Lundberg

Burford Capital

New York

Jamison Lynch

GLS Capital

Chicago

Dana MacGrath

Omni Bridgeway

New York

Ellora MacPherson

Harbour

London

William Marra

Validity Finance

New York

Jeremy Marshall

Omni Bridgeway

London

Timothy Mayer

Therium Capital

London

Hugh McLernon

Omni Bridgeway

Perth, Australia

Yasmin Mohammad

Vannin Capital

Paris

Jonathan Molot

Burford Capital

Washington, D.C.

Charlie Morris

Woodsford Litigation Funding

London

Hassan Murphy

TRGP Capital

New York

Jack Neumark

Fortress Investment Group

New York

Angela Ni

Parabellum Capital

New York

Michael Nicolas

Longford Capital

Chicago

Stephen O'Dowd

Harbour

London

Emily O'Neill

Deminor

London

100

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

EMILY SLATER

BY JOHN RYAN

THE GROWTH OF LEGAL FINANCE IN THE

United States over the past decade has surprised skeptics and even those who always believed in its power to change the legal industry. Among the elite firms to lead the way is Burford Capital, which has been lucky to have Emily Slater on board for nearly all of its 12-year history. Slater joined in 2010, a year after its founding, from Debevoise & Plimpton, where she was a litigator focused on complex financial cases and investigations. Now as Managing Director, Slater says that Burford has continued to enhance its position in the marketplace with an impressive array of new investments which increasingly serves large corporate clients in addition to smaller companies and law firms that have already adopted legal finance as a tool. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry and to whom? Emily Slater: Burford Capital is the leading finance firm focused on law. An underpublicized yet highgrowth asset class, legal finance is changing the way companies and law firms enhance liquidity and manage the risk associated with commercial litigation and arbitration risk.

At its core, our business is built on Burford’s expertise in valuing legal assets – typically affirmative recovery commercial litigation – and our capacity to provide capital to clients who have those assets. Most often, we provide capital over the life of a legal asset in exchange for a portion of a successful outcome. We make investments, not loans, and they are almost always non-recourse. Burford’s portfolio includes more than 1,000 commercial matters. We work with law firms and corporate legal and finance departments to evaluate and invest in their legal assets. As of 2020, 94 AmLaw 100 and 90 Global 100 firms have brought us opportunities to fund their firms or their clients. And despite 18-plus months of global disruption, we continued to win clients, of which 57 percent were corporate clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to startups – indicating a growing awareness and use of legal finance among C-suite executives and in-house lawyers. It’s a trend we expect to continue as CFOs and other corporate executives seek out

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

opportunities to bring more commercial thinking and corporate finance tools to the legal function, reduce uncertainty and maximize the value of their assets. LD: How has the legal finance profession changed since the early part of your career? ES: Chris Bogart and Jon Molot launched Burford Capital in 2009 with a modest $130M IPO on the London Stock Exchange. A year later, I joined the underwriting team under now co-COO Aviva Will. At that time, Burford had two rooms in NYC with spotty internet. I always believed Burford would be successful; at that time, however, I had no idea that 10 years later we would have a team of over 135 people, offices around the world and a $4.5B portfolio. While not “new,” legal finance as an industry is certainly still in its early stages. When Burford launched in 2009, small companies were our primary clients; single-case financing arrangements to finance legal fees and expenses were the extent of what was available to clients. But as client needs changed, our business adapted. Ten years later, we’ve come a long way from offering only single-case fees-andexpenses arrangements to a broad group of solu-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

101

100 tions for risk and liquidity needs of large companies and law firms, including multimillion-dollar up-front monetizations of case value, multi-case portfolio investments, asset-recovery services and After the Event (ATE) insurance – and we’re continuing to develop, adapt to and anticipate our clients’ needs. That’s one reason why I’ve been with the firm for a decade – as Burford has grown, my role has likewise evolved and today I work with multi-functional teams across Burford’s business. I started in 2010 as a vice president underwriting single-case legal finance transactions and helped build Burford’s investment and underwriting processes from the ground up. I helped launch Burford’s business development function, worked on Burford’s complex strategies business and now focus on large investments and new investment ideas as the head of Burford’s new business incubator. Understanding that there is untapped growth potential in the market and that the market doesn’t grow organically, the Incubator is dedicated to identifying capital and risk management needs in the legal market. Central to this project is working with large corporate clients to develop commercial funding solutions that address their particular business priorities, which can vary significantly from client to client. Companies are beginning to recognize the previously hidden value of their legal assets and how legal finance can help them reach strategic business goals. But it is still early adopters that are using legal finance and we continue to work to educate clients about the benefits of legal finance and learn from them about what their needs are. LD: To the extent your business involves innovation in the legal industry, what is it you are trying to achieve that will help your clients or their business?

ES: As of 2020, companies accounted for over half of our commitment, but our research has found that there remains significant untapped potential in this market. Most financial officers understand that their companies have valuable legal assets yet they are not yet fully leveraging the tools available to unlock the value of them. At Burford, we assess the value of commercial legal assets, determine the economics of potential investments and structure deal terms to optimize results for our clients. In doing so, we enable companies to pursue meritorious litigation and arbitration while limiting the associated cost and risk. In our growing work directly with large companies, we help CFOs and GCs understand the value of litigation and arbitration and shift the perception of legal departments from “cost centers” to a revenue generating arm of the business. For instance, in a recent survey [conducted by Burford] 75 percent of large company financial officers reported unenforced judgments worth $20M to $100M in 2020; 39 percent say that they do not conduct modeling of litigation because litigation variables don’t lend themselves to quantitative analysis; and 56 percent don’t think that they are able to control timing of cash flows from litigation. Legal finance can be a solution to provide predictability and certainty to contingent recoveries, cash flows and expenses. Burford has the industry leading underwriting process to help assess and model litigation risk and outcomes, drawing on our own proprietary and public data from thousands of cases. And the fact that finance professionals still view these as unsolvable problems demonstrates that there is a lot of room for growth for legal finance to assist them.

IN OUR GROWING WORK DIRECTLY WITH LARGE COMPANIES, WE HELP CFOS AND GCS UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION AND SHIFT THE PERCEPTION OF LEGAL DEPARTMENTS FROM “COST CENTERS” TO A REVENUE GENERATING ARM OF THE BUSINESS. 102

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

TANIA SULAN

BY ALISON PREECE

TANIA SULAN IS THE CHIEF INVESTMENT

Ofﬁ cer in Australia and New Zealand for Omni Bridgeway, the global leader in ﬁnancing and managing legal risks. A former litigator, Sulan was drawn early on to the business development aspects of growing a business, and the strategic dynamics of working with multiple parties to move a matter forward.

She joined the dispute funding industry in 2007, and emerged as a pioneer in the field, working as an Investment Manager for several years before moving to Canada to establish a foothold for the firm and introduce the nascent industry there, where it continues to flourish. She has since returned to her native Australia, where she is helping shape industry regulations in the country and overseeing an expansion of Omni Bridgeway’s work in New Zealand. Lawdragon: Will you please give our readers a brief description of the work you do? Tania Sulan: Omni Bridgeway provides dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. We work with law firms, individual claimants, corporations, sovereigns and multilateral institutions. I lead a talented team of Investment Managers who source and oversee the company’s investments across Australia and New Zealand. LD: What first drew you to the legal finance industry? TS: I first became aware of dispute finance in 2006 when I was working as a litigation lawyer in Sydney. I was attending a D&O liability and insurance symposium where one of the directors of Omni Bridgeway (then IMF Bentham) was presenting. His presentation was on the day before the Australian High Court’s seminal decision on litigation funding, Fostif, was delivered. His excitement was contagious. A year later whilst on my first maternity leave, I approached him for a job, and it turns out my timing was good. I was attracted to the opportunity to be involved in a nascent industry and the access-tojustice focus of the business. LD: What do you enjoy about this work? Has the career change been satisfying?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

TS: My work at Omni Bridgeway has provided me with a myriad of experiences and opportunities that have allowed me to satisfy my entrepreneurial spirit. I was fortunate to spend three years in Canada building Omni Bridgeway’s business and the industry. Commercial dispute finance was new to the country at the time, so we had the opportunity to play a key role in shaping the industry in that jurisdiction. Earlier this year, one of Omni Bridgeway’s funded cases was the subject of the first Canadian Supreme Court consideration of litigation funding. I enjoy the three-way interactions between our company, clients and their lawyers that are required to find solutions for companies seeking capital and risk management strategies. This always involves a great deal of good will, creativity and lateral thinking. Finding access-to-justice solutions for those facing stronger opponents is something I’m also passionate about. LD: How has this last year been for your firm? Any notable trends coming out of the pandemic? TS: We are currently seeing an uptick in applications for funding from corporates around the globe. They are exploring Omni Bridgeway’s cost and risk mitiga-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

103

100 tion solutions as a way to monetize their litigation assets. In an environment where preserving liquidity is important, alternative ways to resource disputes and enforcement activities is a conversation many companies are interested in having. LD: Tell us more about the career path that led to your current work. What sort of practice did you have as a litigator? Did you ever clerk? TS: I began my career in 1995 as an Associate Law Clerk to the Honorable Justice Sheller in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales where I assisted with research and case management. In 1996, I joined Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers, a medium-sized firm specializing predominantly in personal injury litigation. I managed a large portfolio of personal injury and medical negligence cases and was responsible for business development activities in the south coast region of NSW. Looking back, this was the first opportunity I had to build and grow part of a business and, as a young lawyer, I loved it. Just after the Sydney Olympics in 2000, I moved to London where I worked at global insurance law firm Kennedys, specializing in insurance and reinsurance coverage disputes. In 2006 I moved back to Australia and was involved in establishing Kennedys’ Sydney office. Again, I had an exciting opportunity to be involved in building a new part of the business. I gained much experience which laid the groundwork for my future roles at Omni Bridgeway. LD: Where did you go to school? TS: I spent most of my high school years in Hong Kong. I received my Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws, with honors, from Australian National University, Canberra, and my Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from College of Law, Sydney. I’m admitted as a solicitor to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and High Court of Australia, and as a solicitor in the United Kingdom. I have also completed an Executive Management Program for Leading Professional Services Firms at Harvard Business School. LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside advisor? TS: Some clients have often already chosen their professional advisers when they seek our finance, but for those who haven’t, we have an extensive world-wide network of leading advisers. Our In-

104

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

vestment Managers work closely with professional advisers to achieve success for funded clients. In addition to our capital, we contribute strategic insights, networks, jurisdictional and cultural know-how to maximize success, complementing the relationship between the lawyer and their client. At Omni Bridgeway we work with many outside advisers in relation to our own business issues. In my view, the best relationships are based on excellent communication, high levels of trust, goodwill and a dose of good fun. LD: Omni Bridgeway has always been a market leader and innovator. Can you talk to us a bit about that history, and perhaps any new innovations on the horizon? TS: Omni Bridgeway has been at the forefront of dispute resolution finance for over 30 years, as the founder of the global industry as we know it today. From our beginnings in 1986 when dispute finance was in its infancy to present day, we continue to develop innovative finance solutions and risk management strategies to support clients. Our solutions are particularly relevant in today’s challenging and dynamic environment given the world events of 2020 and beyond. For example, we are developing a world-first global ATE insurance arrangement which provides funded parties, in cost-shifting jurisdictions, coverage for their adverse costs without requiring a separate ATE insurance policy. We were one of the first funders to finance insolvency and arbitration proceedings in Asia. We are the only dispute financier selected by IFC World Bank to finance non-performing loans in the MENA region. We have developed our own proprietary systems for capturing, managing and analyzing client information and data for our funded class actions. And of course, we have introduced dispute finance to new markets around the world. This includes Canada where from 2016-2019, I led the establishment and growth of Omni Bridgeway’s Canadian operations as its Chief Investment Officer. Today our Canadian team has grown a diverse investment portfolio and has offices in Toronto and Montreal. From the impecunious to solvent companies, our non-recourse funding is designed to provide clients

100

with an alternate source of capital to pursue legal claims and recover awards and judgments without diverting or risking their own funds. Our funding also enables lawyers to offer clients innovative ﬁnancial solutions, demonstrating they understand their commercial needs and solidifying their role as a trusted adviser.

around the world. Unlike other funders, our global Investment Management team is permanently deployed on the ground in each of the jurisdictions without having to outsource any of our capabilities, offering jurisdictional expertise, local contacts and cultural awareness to identify new cases and add value to current cases.

LD: Given your leadership role with the ﬁrm, are you able to share some recent or forthcoming strategic business plans for Omni?

Our talent is, in my opinion, unparalleled. We have over 165 specialists in law, intelligence and finance with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems. Our multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural, multilingual team of investment managers and enforcement specialists includes seasoned litigators and recovery experts from premier international law firms, corporate counsel, business leaders, economists, financial experts, business intelligence and asset tracing professionals, educated at the world’s leading institutions. We are a highly collaborative group, have a collective strong ethical compass and are energized by the work we do.

TS: We are a leading business in a growing industry, so the landscape is dynamic and leaderships roles are exciting. Having executed a successful merger in 2019, we are busily integrating our business across the world. Regulatory environments are adapting to our innovative industry in various jurisdictions and we are currently involved in regulatory reform in Australia – my domain. Here in Australia, last year we saw a Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into the class action industry and regulation of litigation funding, with a lengthy report being delivered just before the end of the year. We are a strong supporter of sensible regulation in Australia to ensure the proper oversight and longevity of the industry. We are also expanding in New Zealand in response to increasing financing inquiries from that market. We now have on-the-ground expertise in New Zealand and are already funding a number of matters. LD: Omni is a clear leader in this space, but as litigation funding picks up speed as an industry and new players emerge, what would you say separates Omni Bridgeway from the pack? TS: Omni Bridgeway is the world’s largest and most experienced funder and the global leader in ﬁnancing and managing legal risks. We have a unique offering for several reasons. We have a long and successful track record, with over 30 years’ experience and an enviable success rate over hundreds of completed cases. We’re committed to transparency as one of our core values, as demonstrated by being a publicly listed company since 2001 with strong and transparent ﬁnancials. We have unmatched enforcement capabilities, having successfully recovered against counterparties in ‘challenging’ jurisdictions, including against sovereign States and quasi-sovereign entities since 1986. We have truly global coverage, with operations

That type of talent feeds into our rigorous investment decision-making, through our formidable investment committees who are responsible for selecting Omni Bridgeway’s investments. The committees comprise former judges, founders of the dispute finance industry and highly experienced legal practitioners whose expertise in assessing cases has led to our enviable track record of success. Finally, we have significant relationships across commerce, finance, insurance, academia, government, media and all layers of the legal industry, which are essential to developing and executing winning strategies on behalf of claimants. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? TS: I like to spend as much time as I can in nature with my husband and three daughters. LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities? TS: I am on the Board of JusticeNet, South Australia’s pro bono clearing house which provide a referral service for low-income and disadvantaged South Australians experiencing civil law issues. Through its work, JusticeNet also provides law firms with the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to CSR through pro bono work.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

105

100 NAME

COMPANY

Molly Pease

Curiam Capital

New York

David Perla

Burford Capital

New York

Rein Philips

Redbreast Litigation Finance

The Hague

Neil Purslow

Therium Capital

London

Robert Rothkopf

Balance Legal Capital

London

Nick Rowles-Davies

Litigation Capital Management

London

Andrew Saker

Omni Bridgeway

New York

Howard Shams

Parabellum Capital

New York

Emily Slater

Burford Capital

New York

David Spiegel

GLS Capital

Chicago

Ruth Stackpool-Moore

Omni Bridgeway

Singapore

Tom Steindler

Exton Advisors

London

Tania Sulan

Omni Bridgeway

Adelaide, Australia

Ralph Sutton

Validity Finance

New York

Susanna Taylor

Litigation Capital Management

Sydney

Raymond Tellini

Delta Capital Partners

Chicago

Sean Thompson

Parabellum Capital

New York

106

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

NAME

COMPANY

LOCATION

Marjolein van den Bosch-Broeren

Omni Bridgeway

Singapore

Raymond van Hulst

Omni Bridgeway

Geneva

Ross Wallin

Curiam Capital

New York

Marcel Wegmüller

Nivalion

Steinhausen/Zug, Switzerland

Boaz Weinstein

Lake Whillans

New York

Wieger Wielinga

Omni Bridgeway

Amsterdam

Aviva Will

Burford Capital

New York

Katharine Wolanyk

Burford Capital

Chicago

Andrew Woltman

Statera Capital

Chicago

Allen Yancy

LexShares

New York

Louis Young

Augusta Ventures

London

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

107

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

100

2021

WE ARE DELIGHTED TO PRESENT OUR 5TH ANNUAL LAWDRAGON GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING. The ascendance of outside professionals as key advisers on some of the most critical issues law firms face globally has been breathtaking. (So much so that some of the most pivotal financial consiglieres have been spun off in their own guide, the Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Legal Finance.) The 100 global leaders recognized here are the cream of the crop in crisis communications; marketing & communication; management consulting; professional recruiting – and even a historical detective. We embrace the creativity of those called upon by the nation’s top lawyers and delight in uncovering specialties and professionals making their mark in expected – as well as surprising – ways. The point is excellence, and that’s what you’ll get from those recognized here. As ever, our process relies upon submissions, journalistic research and peer vetting. We appreciate the many, many professionals who entrust us with their confidential assessment, which is critical to the quality of the Lawdragon guides. This year’s guide recognizes 43 percent women and is 13 percent inclusive. New this year is the creation of a Hall of Fame recognition for those consultants whose strategic insight has been unsurpassed in a career dedicated to helping law firms ascend. Nine standouts are recognized here (denoted by an asterisk), laying the foundation for permanent recognition of this important craft.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

109

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Jacob Aitken

Kidd Aitken

London

Media – Directory Maven

Mike Androvett

Androvett

Dallas

Marketing & Communications

Scott Atlas*

Atlas Counsel Search

Houston

Professional Recruiting

Divya Bala

Lippman Jungers Bala

Los Angeles

Professional Recruiting

Louise Beeson

Bell Yard

London

Crisis Communications

Deborah BenCanaan

Major, Lindsey & Africa

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Brandy Bergman

Reevemark

New York

Crisis Communications

Dan Binstock

Garrison & Sisson

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Robert Brigham

Major, Lindsey & Africa

Palo Alto

Professional Recruiting

Cari Brunelle

Baretz Brunelle

Huntersville, N.C.

Marketing & Communications

Hugh Burns

Reevemark

New York

Crisis Communications

Paul Caminiti

Reevemark

New York

Crisis Communications

Delia Cannan

Reevemark

New York

Crisis Communications

Jennifer Carr

Furia Rubel Communications

Doylestown, Pa.

Marketing & Communications

Jeffrey Conta

Lippman Jungers Bala

Chicago

Professional Recruiting

Timothy Corcoran

Corcoran Consulting

Charlottesville, Va.

Management Consulting

Michael Coston

Coston Consulting

New York

Marketing & Communications

Silvia Coulter*

LawVision

Manchester, Mass.

Legal Consulting

Darryl Cross

HighPer Teams

Chicago

Management Consulting

Lanny Davis*

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

110

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

CONTRIBUTION

100

JANE SULLIVAN ROBERTS

BY KATRINA DEWEY

A STICK SLAPS AGAINST THE BALL, AND KIDS roar in excitement as the leaves make their way toward rust and crimson on Holland Avenue in the Bronx.

“The sewer was home base. The tire on a parked car was ﬁrst base. Another sewer was second base and another tire was third base,” recalls Jane Sullivan Roberts of her childhood and the joys of playing stickball, volleyball, boxball and a constant hubbub out in the streets. “We had so many kids on our street that we could ﬁeld two teams without crossing over to the next street,” she says of her Irish-Italian neighborhood. “We were not segregated into boys’ teams and girls’ teams; they were integrated and the girls played just as hard as the boys did. At that age, there wasn’t a big difference in height and size so we were as good as they were.” The rules were simple. So was life. Family, church, competition. Fierce dreams of working hard and gaining a better life. Roberts has a rare enthusiasm for grabbing life’s experiences and always aiming to improve. Her mother taught her to make the bed when she stayed in a hotel as a treat for the maid. “We were taught to leave a place better than we found it,” she says. And in her life, she is doing just that, personally and professionally. She is among the very best legal recruiters in the country and the managing partner of Macrae in Washington, D.C., where she helps lawyers assess their careers and guide them toward new vistas. Her verve and interest in learning and experiencing all life had to offer led her to study mathematics, then law, and live in Australia, West Virginia and Minneapolis before settling in Washington, D.C. She was a systems engineer at Bell Labs before going to law school, and a partner at Pillsbury practicing technology law before switching gears and developing a new approach to recruiting and professional development. She thought there was room for improvement. Her move to professional recruiting at Major, Lindsey & Africa in 2007 was inspired by her husband’s new job. John G. Roberts Jr., a longtime Supreme Court advocate from Hogan & Hartson, had been

PHOTO BY KAYLA MAYHOOD

appointed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2003. In 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist died and Roberts was confirmed as his successor. While she could have stayed at Pillsbury, she was concerned about the appearance of conflicts and heard out a friend who suggested she consider recruiting. “There are many paths to a good life,” she says from her summer house – which became a home during Covid. It’s on an island in Maine, where she plans to paddleboard and pick up some freshly raked blueberries later in the day. “People are probably not going to be in the same job for 40 years. There are so many interesting things to do if you’re open to change and opportunity.” Lawdragon: Can you tell me please how you came to be a lawyer? Jane Sullivan Roberts: We had law as a background in my family; my maternal grandfather was the longest-serving law clerk in the history of Ireland, for 61 years. One of my aunts, my mother’s sister, who came to Connecticut, had worked with him in the solicitor’s office.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

111

100

THERE ARE MANY PATHS TO A GOOD LIFE. PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SAME JOB FOR 40 YEARS. THERE ARE SO MANY INTERESTING THINGS TO DO IF YOU’RE OPEN TO CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITY. While my maternal grandfather was not a solicitor, he essentially acted as one, because he was both very smart and down to earth and so all the farmers loved to do their transactions with him. At Christmas, they would bring him a goose or ham to thank him for his work. And one of my granduncles in Ireland was a member of the IRA and fought for Ireland’s independence from England in the 1920s. After the war, he became the clerk of a local court, and he served in that position for decades. LD: As a child, you spent some summers in Ireland. What were your impressions of your relatives who worked in the law? JSR: As a kid, I thought of my grandfather as smart, careful, considerate and admirable in those ways. My granduncle had an even more colorful life. As a courier for the IRA, he transported lots of money in a mere briefcase. His modus operandi was to act totally nonchalant, throw the briefcase onto the bus, climb onto the bus, and carry it to the next city. He had to be really cool under pressure. He did eventually get caught and served time in a prison in Northern Ireland. He went on hunger strike where he met his soon-to-be bride, because she was teaching the Irish language to inmates. So they were both patriots. My mother, on the other hand, had worked in a hospital and I was very interested in that as well. When I started at the College of the Holy Cross, I was a pre-med and a math major. LD: What happened to Jane Sullivan, M.D.? JSR: While I liked the science classes very much, I hated the laboratories – especially because they were in the late afternoon overlooking the tennis courts and I would have much preferred to be playing tennis. Even though I worked for a couple of summers in the hospital I dropped pre-med and became a math major. I loved math and I was really good at math. I also loved history, and I was good at that but I thought, “I can teach myself history. I need a professor to help me with math.”

112

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: So when you graduated college, you moved to Australia! That’s so interesting. How did it happen? JSR: I got a Rotary International Fellowship to study overseas, and I took it in Australia at the University of Melbourne. I thought, “Well, math is the same all over the world, so why study math in Australia?” I preferred to study something that would reﬂect Australia’s culture. So I studied education and the current thinking in Australian education. It’s interesting because they were going through massive post-World War II immigration and it was impacting neighborhoods and schools, and we had been through similar waves earlier in the U.S. It was interesting to compare what the United States did in the 1880s, 1920s, etc., to what Australia was doing in the 1970s. I gave talks at Rotary lunches on New York immigration patterns, which they could compare to what was going on in the city of Melbourne. I stayed for a second year, teaching math, science and religion in an all-girls Catholic high school, and then I stayed a third year, just studying math. Then my mother said, “Well, when are you coming home?” LD: Mom for the win. What came next? JSR: I applied to both math graduate school and law school. Brown University gave me a full scholarship to study applied math, while I basically would have had to pay for law school myself. So I said, “Let me try applied math and see if I like it. It doesn’t cost me anything except time, and I’ve got time.” After my master’s degree, I considered a PhD program but asked, “Do I really want to do that?” So I said, “Let’s see what math in the real world is like.” LD: And what did you ﬁnd? JSR: I was a systems engineer at Bell Laboratories, which was quite interesting. I worked on an aspect of the caller ID project, which was an enormous undertaking at the time.

100

LD: Can I presume you were one of the rare women in the field at that point? JSR: I wasn’t the first woman at Bell Labs, but it was the early days of women working there. I felt comfortable working alongside men and that we were treated just the same. Maybe it comes from playing in the streets as a child, growing up with boys and girls on the same teams. Or just that I had experienced such a mix of settings by the time I got to Bell that I didn’t think much about it. My Catholic high school in the Bronx was all girls and at Holy Cross I was in the first class that included women. Holy Cross was incredibly welcoming to the first class of women. We comprised a third of the class but close to half of the students in honors math, which I think is pretty interesting. Brown began admitting women several years before I started, but I was in the first wave of women in the applied math PhD program – there were just a few of us. Then, at Bell Labs, most of my colleagues were men but it was all about the work, what we were capable of, not what gender we were. There were some remarkable women there, like Shirley Jackson, a scientist a decade or so older than me who had been the first Black woman to receive a PhD from M.I.T. and went on to become the first Black and first female president of Rensselaer Polytechnic University. LD: And then you went to Georgetown Law. What was that transition like? JSR: One, I was excited to be dealing more with the social and legal fabric of our country, rather than the technical, scientific aspects. Legal cases are kind of like stories, and reading stories was refreshing after working with math problems for years. I was also excited to be in law school and at the prospect of becoming a lawyer. LD: Was that your first time living in Washington, D.C.? JSR: I had done an internship on Capitol Hill for my Congressman for a year, but I was still relatively new to Washington. This was the early 1980s. The downtown area had been torn apart by the riots of 1968, and had not yet recovered. It was so quiet at night, unlike the nightlife and neighborhood life of New York. I had a little Volkswagen bug and I remember driving around wondering, “Where’s downtown? Where do you go shopping here? Where are the bars?”

I was studying hard, though, and my social life was fellow students and the parties or dinners they might have. It’s not that I really missed the hubbub; it’s just that I didn’t see it. The city has changed dramatically, as you probably know, since then. At that time, it was kind of down at the heels. It’s really been fun to be part of and enjoy the development of Washington into a fabulous city. LD: Where did you go with your journey once you graduated from Georgetown in 1984? JSR: I clerked on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge James M. Sprouse and that took me to West Virginia. Then I went to Minneapolis for a year and a half at Dorsey & Whitney. I’ve been back in D.C. since 1987. LD: Did your clerkship teach you any valuable lessons about how you wanted to pursue your career, or why you didn’t want to live in West Virginia? JSR: I loved living in West Virginia. I had a wonderful time. I learned how to make a quilt and did a lot of square dancing and clogging and hiking! LD: You can ﬁnd amazing things anywhere, right? So when you moved to Minneapolis, did you intend to stay? JSR: I was ready to settle down. I was looking for a wholesome place to live and I thought Minneapolis was quite wholesome. I also wanted to do corporate law for a while because I had loans to repay. I was very conscious of that. LD: And then in 1987, you returned to D.C. and started at Piper Marbury. Perhaps in a foreshadowing of your future career, it took just three weeks before your senior partner decided to move to Shaw Pittman, which later merged with Pillsbury. And you made the move with him. You ﬁrst did litigation, including a nuclear reactor dispute and the only civil litigation to come out of Iran-Contra, in which you helped win the highest Rule 11 sanctions at that time. Then, after a stint in Australia as a lawyer, you moved to the transactional side and became a standout technology lawyer, especially in communication satellites. At some point, though, you moved away from substantive law practice, telling Pillsbury’s managing partner you’d like to work with the committee focused on talent development. That was quite a novel move. What inspired you? JSR: I thought we could be more strategic about our recruiting and about how we developed lawyers at

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

113

100 the firm, both partners and associates, and about our alumni relationships. I had some experience in this. I’d worked to recruit to the firm a law boutique that specialized in telecommunications. They were adept in regulatory work on communications satellites, which had become one of my specialties. I believed we really needed to be thinking about our talent pipeline from our first contact in the law schools to, basically, the grave. The committee broke that span into stages – from recruiting, which covered contact before they joined Pillsbury, to their tenure at the firm and then their career afterward, when they might be roughly comparable to university alumni. I thought we could get buy-in across the partnership if we started first with the partners and figured out what they most needed. What they most wanted was training in business development, so we began there, and we were very successful. That experience has been helpful to me in advising lateral candidates because it gave me more insight into how to build a successful legal practice. LD: While you had worked at improving the firm’s talent acquisition and development, becoming a professional recruiter was a new career. What led to the change? JSR: It was awkward to be practicing law in the firm – not unethical, not prohibited, but still awkward – after my husband was appointed Chief Justice. Also, I had two young children. At brunch with friends on New Year’s Day in 2007, one suggested I become a recruiter. I said, “Really? I’ve never even returned one of their phone calls!” But in 30 seconds, I could see this made

tremendous sense. It was like a lightning bolt. Another friend at the brunch was then the lateral recruiting partner for a prominent law firm with offices in D.C. and offered to introduce me to Major, Lindsey & Africa. Fast forward a few months and I started there. LD: You built up a tremendous reputation as a recruiter at Major Lindsey. What led you to join Macrae, then known as Mlegal, in 2019? JSR: I wasn’t looking to move – which is often the case with our candidates in recruiting. CEO Carter Brown, whom I knew from Major Lindsey and considered a wonderful person and business leader, contacted me. I’d heard great things about the firm – which rebranded to Macrae about a year ago – but I agreed to meet mostly out of courtesy to him. When we met, he explained what they were trying to do, and I thought, “Wow, this makes a lot of sense.” They were pulling together top recruiting talent in the world’s four most important legal markets, Northern California, New York, D.C. and London, and they wanted me to open the D.C. office. The firm had a strong foothold in the San Francisco Bay Area, where founder Joe Macrae had set up shop years earlier, and they’d just expanded to New York and London. The next step was D.C. The goal was to be an elite transatlantic boutique squarely focused on partner-level talent, and a firm that did things at the highest levels. Did I want to be a part of that? LD: And of course, given your history of making bold moves, you said yes. JSR: I decided I did. In terms of being entrepreneurial, it was an exciting opportunity to be on the ground floor of a firm that already had an excellent reputation and big, but realistic, ambitions. When I joined

MACRAE HAD A STRONG FOOTHOLD IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, WHERE FOUNDER JOE MACRAE HAD SET UP SHOP YEARS EARLIER, AND THEY’D JUST EXPANDED TO NEW YORK AND LONDON. THE NEXT STEP WAS D.C. THE GOAL WAS TO BE AN ELITE TRANSATLANTIC BOUTIQUE SQUARELY FOCUSED ON PARTNER-LEVEL TALENT, AND A FIRM THAT DID THINGS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. DID I WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT?…I DECIDED I DID. 114

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

YOU NEED TO BE THE DRIVER OF YOUR OWN CAREER. IN THIS RAPIDLY EVOLVING LEGAL MARKET YOU SHOULD TAKE STOCK OF YOUR OWN SITUATION EVERY FEW YEARS AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT SUPPORTS YOU IN ACHIEVING YOUR OWN GOALS OR WHETHER YOU SHOULD SEEK BETTER OPPORTUNITIES. Macrae it was nimble and at the beginning of its cultural formation, because while the firm wasn’t “new,” per se, the direction it was going in was. New partners could really influence and implement best practices. While each of us was experienced and successful, the firm didn’t have an encumbering legacy. We could just ask, “What is the best way to do this?” and then do it across the board. We’ve spent the last two years driving best practices throughout the firm, from the most senior recruiters to our knowledge managers, who are fabulous and provide tremendous support to make us more effective and efficient recruiters. The D.C. office has grown to eight. We spend alternate Tuesday afternoons discussing how we can do things better, candid conversations that can be excruciating sometimes but the result is that we’ve been continually improving as individuals, as an office, and as a firm. The system of shared intelligence we’ve developed, and the total transparency each of us has into what’s going on across the firm, from our projects to the financials to internal hiring, is pretty incredible. LD: I love your insight about focusing on building toward what’s better. What are some of the tips you offer candidates in this vein? JSR: It really depends. I start with listening to what they have done, the pluses and minuses of their past, and where they would like to go. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don’t know. The overarching theme is that they need to take charge of their career; nobody else will do it for them. They need to listen to their own heart about what they really like and don’t like, and we go from there. LD: Is there anything unique about what it takes to make it as a great lawyer in D.C. as opposed to, say, New York or San Francisco or London, that you share with them?

JSR: My focus now is on highly experienced lawyers – government lawyers and law firm partners. But when I was executive partner for talent development at Pillsbury, I worked with associates as well as partners and had a weekly luncheon with first-years, where I brought in lots of different speakers. One thing I thought was really important for them, if they foresaw a long future in Washington, was to serve in the federal government at some point to understand how it works, to get hands-on experience with the agencies, with the laws, regulations and processes, and to develop a network. LD: Any advice for your client base, or for lawyers more broadly, on making smart career choices at a time of such rapid change in the industry? JSR: You need to be the driver of your own career. Just as you assess the fitness of your children’s schools every few years, in this rapidly evolving legal market you should take stock of your own situation every few years and determine whether it supports you in achieving your own goals or whether you should seek better opportunities. LD: That makes a lot of sense. Considering the breadth of your career, what would you say has been your favorite job? JSR: I’ve enjoyed each of them. In my pre-professional life, I loved waitressing. I also loved teaching and my transactional work. Now, with recruiting, it feels like the perfect choice for this stage of my career, where I feel as if I have so much relevant experience to guide people through what can be a very important and stressful transition in their life. What are the four big decisions? Getting married, buying a house, having a baby, and changing jobs. I’m with them for the job transition – which sometimes coincides with getting married, having a baby or buying a house – and it’s very gratifying to help people during a critical phase in their lives. There’s nothing else I would rather be doing now.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

115

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Ray DeLorenzi

Rebuttal PR

New York

Crisis Communications

Jamie Diaferia

Infinite Global

New York

Media & Communications

Mike Dolan

Finsbury Glover Hering

New York

Crisis Communications

Lauren Drake

Macrae

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Peter Duda

Weber Shandwick

New York

Crisis Communications

Jesse Dungan

Infinite Global

San Francisco

Marketing & Communications

Kelsey Eidbo

Infinite Global

San Francisco

Marketing & Communications

Shahed Fakhari Larson

Brunswick

New York

Crisis Communications

Deborah Farone

Farone Advisors LLC

New York

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Jeremy Fielding

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communications

Jonathan Fitzgarrald

Equinox Strategy Partners

Beverly Hills, Calif.

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Valerie Fontaine*

Seltzer Fontaine

Los Angeles

Professional Recruiting

Evan Fox

Long Ridge Partners

New York

Professional Recruiting

Joele Frank

New York

Public Relations & Investor Relations

Nick Gaffney

Zumado

San Francisco

Marketing & Communications

Jason Gart

History Associates Incorporated

Rockville, Md.

Historical Detective

Robert Gemmill

Argyle

Washington, D.C.

Strategic Communications & P.R.

Philip Hall

Portland

London

Crisis Communications

116

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

DEBORAH BEN-CANAAN

IT’S ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS FOR DEBORAH

Ben-Canaan. As a young associate, Ben-Canaan enjoyed the strategy of business litigation but found a real spark of joy when she volunteered to help with her firm’s on-campus recruiting efforts. Before long she made a career change, joining market-leading legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, where she was able to combine her interest in the law with her love of people, matching talent to departments in a way that leads to strategic growth and career satisfaction. Almost two decades later, Ben-Canaan is now the Senior Practice Leader for the In-House Counsel Recruiting group at MLA, working with CEOs, Chief Human Resource Officers, board members and general counsel within companies and organizations across a wide variety of industries to help them build and enhance their legal departments. Lawdragon: What do you enjoy about working with legal departments to recruit talent? Deborah Ben-Canaan: There is so much about this job I love. Day to day, I get to work with smart, driven people; that includes my clients, my

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

BY ALISON PREECE

candidates and my MLA colleagues. I have terrific clients. They are interested in issues like diversity and inclusion, top talent retention and growth of their legal teams. They see the value in being strategic about their hires and in finding the best candidates, not just the best of who is looking. I also love knowing that I am impacting lives by impacting careers. I love the long-term trusted relationships I have formed – both professional and personal – with people I have been in this job with for the last 19 years. Internally, I like knowing the harder I work and the more I stretch, the more successful I can become. And, I love helping the next generation of MLA recruiters grow and develop. LD: How did you get into legal recruiting in the first place? DBC: I feel like I was born to do this job (although no one ever says that they want to be an executive recruiter when they are growing up). I was a marketing major (the most social of the business majors!) and an industrial psych minor at Penn State University. I was always fascinated by the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

117

100 workplace and what it takes to have a successful, happy organization. My focus in law school was on employment law and I assumed that I would come out of college to defend employees who had been wronged. That did not happen. Instead, my law school loans kicked in, and for five years, I worked with two amazing law firms doing a variety of business litigation with incredible mentors. That said, my heart wasn’t in it. I loved the clients but something was missing. I wanted to combine my love of working with people with my legal knowledge and my desire to help organizations be successful. I started doing on-campus recruiting to dip my toe into the industry and realized that I loved it. I was recruited to join Major, Lindsey & Africa when I turned 30, and I helped open and grow the San Diego office. I have been with the firm for 19 years now, moving from San Diego to Washington, D.C., eight years ago to help grow the D.C. In-House Counsel Recruiting Practice. LD: That’s great you had early mentors as a young lawyer. Did you find helpful mentors after you made your career change? DBC: Yes, Marty Africa was one of the best. A class act all the way. She touched my life as she did so many others. I still meet people who remember conversations with her from 20 years ago, where she clearly impacted their career path. She was one of my first mentors at MLA. I still miss her and think about her often. LD: Working for legal departments would give you such a breadth of businesses to work with. Have any industries emerged as a favorite for you? DBC: Each client is unique, with its own personality and challenges. And I love working with each and every one of them. I’ve done searches for big, sexy corporations and small hometown businesses. I’ve worked with really controversial and taboo companies to religious organizations and government agencies. With every one, I learn something and I just love the challenge and new adventure each one brings. LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as an executive recruiter? DBC: I am passionate about what I do and authentic when I do it. That is key. You can tell when someone is “phoning it in” or just trying to make a sale. My job is to make the hiring process easy for

118

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

my clients and to take the stress off their plates. They deal with so many issues in a day surrounding their business, shareholders and colleagues, they should not have to worry about hiring. With every engagement, I try my best to understand what my clients need and truly gain a sense of the culture and style of the organization. This way I can represent them in the market honestly and as an extension of their team. I then believe in providing them with as much honesty and feedback as I can throughout the process. It’s the only way to get the perfect match. LD: For others who may be considering or already pursuing a similar career, what would you say it takes to thrive in your field? DBC: To be successful in legal search, you need tenacity and hustle. Every day you have to be motivated to be the best. It helps to have an insatiable curiosity about your clients and candidates. And then to be willing to dig deeper and ask hard questions. Of course, a sense of humor doesn’t hurt. And mad organization skills are a must. LD: MLA is a clear leader in the legal recruiting space. What are the elements that set it apart, from your perspective? DBC: Major, Lindsey & Africa is the best in the business – hands down. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows lawyers like we do. With nearly 40 years in the business, we know the ins and outs of corporate legal departments and law firms, and with more than 27 offices around the world, we have a pulse on the market across the United States as well as the EMEA and APAC regions. MLA was built on our passion to help corporate legal departments and law firms build great teams and our desire to assist lawyers and legal professionals in following their career aspirations. And that’s what we do every day. Our goal is to guide lawyers and legal professionals through every stage of their career and to be trusted advisors to legal teams no matter what comes their way. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? DBC: I spend as much time as I can with my 15-year-old daughter. She is the absolute best thing I have ever done in my life. She makes me laugh and always surprises me with her intellect, wit and good heartedness. I am also a huge fan of big bold red wines and college football.

100

JENNIFER SIMPSON CARR

BY JOHN RYAN

FURIA RUBEL’S PHILOSOPHY OF LEADING

by example has paid dividends for the esteemed strategic marketing and PR agency as well as for an always-growing array of law firm clients, most of them in the vast mid-sized market. Jennifer Simpson Carr spent most of her career in-house at law firms before joining Furia Rubel at the start of 2020 as its director of business development. Carr says the women-owned agency’s ongoing success is rooted in a holistic approach to client service along with a strong internal culture deeply committed to diversity. Carr embodies the agency’s spirit of continuous professional improvement, serving as the producer of its award-winning “On Record PR” podcast and completing an executive education program at Columbia University during the pandemic. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services Furia Rubel provides? Jennifer Simpson Carr: Furia Rubel is a full-service agency that supports legal industry clients including law firms, legal technology and alternative dispute resolution providers, industry associations, and public interest agencies. We provide strategic communications planning, public relations, crisis planning and management, marketing, business development support, content marketing, reputation management and social media services. With more than 20 years in business, Furia Rubel was the first niche legal public relations agency in Pennsylvania and remains one of only a handful of legal marketing agencies owned and operated by a licensed attorney and woman. Clients tell us they appreciate our legal and ethics expertise as they feel an added level of efficiency and protection, especially when dealing with legal issues, compliance issues, regulated industries and highrisk businesses. Most of our legal industry clients are mid-sized law firms. The agency’s focus is to support clients in achieving their business objectives, including revenue goals and recruitment. That is why our strategic plans and ongoing support are grounded in data. Clients tell us they appreciate our commitment to determine meaningful and measurable tactics and how we collaborate with their in-house teams to implement plans that deliver results. In-house marketing teams also appreciate using these metrics

PHOTO BY ROBYN REU GRAHAM

to demonstrate value to their attorneys and other stake holders within their firms. Our team understands the day-to-day pressures and issues that attorneys and business professionals face. We understand that part of our job is to make our clients’ business lives easier and to provide support and resources that they don’t otherwise have in-house. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? JSC: There are many things I find professionally satisfying about working in legal marketing strategy. It is exciting to be part of a women-owned certified organization that values the individuals as much as the team. We combine our passions, interests and expertise on client teams to leverage each other’s strengths and bring the best we can to our work. I appreciate the diversity of our legal marketing community and the clients our agency serves. We support clients across the U.S. and in the Caribbean and work with law firms and companies with offices globally. We also work with lawyers and professionals with vast and different backgrounds that represent five generations and myriad practice areas and industries. We also are faced with new challenges regularly. For instance, like everyone, we had to learn to pivot and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

119

100 provide expert communications support for all of our clients during the pandemic and times of civil unrest – learning about new regulations, issues and obstacles along the way – while facing the same challenges as many of our clients did during the first global pandemic in modern history. Another thing I really love is that our agency culture is to lead by example. That means that if we are recommending that a client adopt new technologies or try new tactics, we will have tested them on our agency first. An example of this is our award-winning podcast, “On Record PR,” for which I serve as the producer and a guest host. We know that podcasts work to support a law firm’s public relations, business development and recruiting efforts – that’s because we do it ourselves. We approached it with a strategic plan and measurable objectives. Now, entering our third year of podcasting, working on it is something I get to deeply enjoy. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your area of consulting? JSC: One of the trends that I expect to drive significant change within the legal services space is the industry’s shift toward desegmentation; taking an approach toward a more collaborative ecosystem. I believe you can ask professionals at any law firm, in any department, and one of the most common hurdles for success that they would cite is teams working in “silos.” The trend toward fostering a fi rm culture in which all departments, positions and executives – including practice and industry groups – come together to engage in open dialogue about challenges and opportunities can facilitate conversations that drive greater efficiency, innovation, client-service and value. Such efforts will be industry-changing as more and more law fi rms adapt to an integrated approach. LD: Can you tell us more about the podcast?

interested in legal and legaltech issues, especially legal innovation. We focus on the issues that affect the industry, including internal and external communications, crisis communications, DE&I [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion], ESG [Environmental, Social and Governance] and strategy. As of October 2021, we have released more than 85 episodes and have listeners in 22 countries. As we enter our third season, I am honored that the podcast has been recognized for three awards in the areas of corporate communications, public relations, and diversity, equity & inclusion. Through the podcasting process, I have had the opportunity to foster relationships with incredible individuals and organizations which has allowed me to expand my and the agency’s professional network. On a personal note, podcasting has expanded my knowledge, interests and network in a unique way that I would not have imagined. LD: Please talk about your educational background that brought you to this point. JSC: I enjoy learning and have committed to continuing my studies in areas where I can grow professionally, add value to our team, and that will best serve clients. I received my bachelor’s degree in communication studies from East Stroudsburg University, where I was captain of the women’s basketball team. I then earned a graduate certificate of marketing from the University of Texas at Dallas and a mini-MBA in digital marketing from Rutgers Business School. During the pandemic, I completed an Executive Education Program in Driving Strategic Impact at Columbia Business School. I am especially proud of my work at Columbia, which focused on the fundamental skill of consulting and structured problemsolving to ensure effectiveness and efficiency for clients. Alongside professionals from around the world, I refined my competencies to support the agency’s clients by leading strategy projects for maximum return, developing high-impact solutions and recommendations, and optimizing collaboration among diverse teams.

JSC: We launched On Record PR in March 2020, just as we began to feel the initial impact of the global pandemic. Our hosts go on record with industry leaders – such as private practice attorneys and in-house counsel, legal business professionals, Csuite executives, journalists, the occasional athlete and other experts – to discuss topics that impact our listeners both professionally and personally and that help support business success.

LD: What advice do you have now for current students or young professionals who wish to have a similar type of career?

Our primary listener base is comprised of midmarket law ﬁrms, corporate in-house counsel, professional services organizations and individuals

JSC: Very early in my career, I thought that executing a project well was the best way to demonstrate value and earn others’ trust. I learned very quickly that

120

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

provide expert communications support for all of our clients during the pandemic and times of civil unrest – learning about new regulations, issues and obstacles along the way – while facing the same challenges as many of our clients did during the first global pandemic in modern history. Another thing I really love is that our agency culture is to lead by example. That means that if we are recommending that a client adopt new technologies or try new tactics, we will have tested them on our agency first. An example of this is our award-winning podcast, “On Record PR,” for which I serve as the producer and a guest host. We know that podcasts work to support a law firm’s public relations, business development and recruiting efforts – that’s because we do it ourselves. We approached it with a strategic plan and measurable objectives. Now, entering our third year of podcasting, working on it is something I get to deeply enjoy. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your area of consulting? JSC: One of the trends that I expect to drive significant change within the legal services space is the industry’s shift toward desegmentation; taking an approach toward a more collaborative ecosystem. I believe you can ask professionals at any law firm, in any department, and one of the most common hurdles for success that they would cite is teams working in “silos.” The trend toward fostering a fi rm culture in which all departments, positions and executives – including practice and industry groups – come together to engage in open dialogue about challenges and opportunities can facilitate conversations that drive greater efficiency, innovation, client-service and value. Such efforts will be industry-changing as more and more law fi rms adapt to an integrated approach. LD: Can you tell us more about the podcast?

LD: What advice do you have now for current students or young professionals who wish to have a similar type of career?

Our primary listener base is comprised of midmarket law ﬁrms, corporate in-house counsel, professional services organizations and individuals

JSC: Very early in my career, I thought that executing a project well was the best way to demonstrate value and earn others’ trust. I learned very quickly that

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

121

100

JEFFREY CONTA

OUR LATEST GUIDE TO THE NATION’S BEST

consultants and strategists to the legal industry has a number of high-quality recruiters whom law firms trust with their most important acquisitions. A smaller subset of that group also brings to the table a significant prior career as a lawyer. Such is the case with Jeffrey Conta, who spent 20 years as a litigator before joining powerhouse recruiting firm Lippman Jungers Bala. Conta credits cofounders and fellow Lawdragon honorees Sabina Lippman and Mark Jungers for convincing him to make the career switch. Lawdragon: Can you talk about what you focus on at Lippman Jungers? Jeffrey Conta: I have been a legal recruiter for the last nine years, after 20 years as a complex civil litigator. I work with global law firms with their placements in Greater China and elsewhere around the Asia-Pacific, as well as in many cities around the United States, including in Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee. I am fortunate to work with many firms, of all different sizes and types. This includes dozens of firms in the AmLaw 100, as well as many regional firms

122

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I AM FORTUNATE TO WORK WITH MANY FIRMS, OF ALL DIFFERENT SIZES AND TYPES. THIS GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER CANDIDATES ALL SORTS OF OPTIONS. and boutiques. This gives me the opportunity to offer candidates all sorts of options. LD: What have you liked about being a recruiter? JC: When I was a litigator I often worked across the table from fantastic lawyers, but due to the nature of advocacy, at times it was quite contentious. Now, as a recruiter, I get to meet and develop enjoyable relationships with lawyers of all types of expertise and personalities. In order to effectively advise candidates it is essential to get to know them, and them you.

PHOTO BY JESSICA KAMINSKI

100

MY RECRUITING STYLE IS TO BE ADAPTABLE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CANDIDATE AND FIRM, AND TO READ THE PARTICULAR SITUATION TO GIVE THE BEST ADVICE POSSIBLE. DOZENS OF ITEMS NEED TO FALL INTO PLACE FOR A PLACEMENT TO MOVE OVER THE FINISH LINE. HOW TO ADDRESS EACH ITEM CAN DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM DEAL TO DEAL, AND SO A COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH DOES NOT SERVE A CANDIDATE’S OR FIRM’S NEEDS. Similarly, I have appreciated developing relationships with key hiring partners, global practice leaders and internal law firm directors of hiring, who turn to me for their hiring needs. It is intriguing learning about how successful law firms operate, including integrating their United States and Asia-Pacific practices.

Jungers Bala) thought I could excel as a legal recruiter, and convinced me to join them. It was a great decision. Sabina and Mark are two of the most highly regarded legal recruiters, and I have learned a great deal from both. To have the best of both worlds, I also now help von Briesen & Roper with their recruiting efforts.

LD: How did you end up developing an AsiaPacific expertise, and are there particular challenges with that type of recruiting?

LD: How would you describe your style as a recruiter?

JC: Sabina started the Asia-Pacific practice, and I was brought on to focus on the region. We worked together to bring the practice to the next level, with me eventually taking over the lead role. During my nine years working in the region I have learned a lot about the differences in the legal communities from one country to the next, which helps firms and candidates navigate challenges that are not present when a candidate is based in the U.S. I feel my unique expertise in this area has allowed me to cultivate a relationship with a strong majority of the decision makers of U.S. based international firms with offices in the Asia-Pacific. LD: What led you to make the move to recruiting? JC: I was a litigation partner at von Briesen & Roper, a phenomenal regional firm headquartered in Milwaukee. Although I really enjoyed working with their lawyers, Sabina Lippman and Mark Jungers (the founding partners of Lippman

JC: My recruiting style is to be adaptable to the needs of the candidate and firm, and to read the particular situation to give the best advice possible. Dozens of items need to fall into place for a placement to move over the finish line. How to address each item can differ significantly from deal to deal, and so a cookie cutter approach does not serve a candidate’s or firm’s needs. Whether I am working on the placement of a team in Chicago, or an individual partner in Hong Kong, it is exciting analyzing all the unique intricacies of each matter to get a great match between candidate and firm. LD: What are some trends you are currently seeing? JC: The market is very hot right now, with firms looking for good candidates of all experience levels and practice expertise. This often gives candidates a strong selection of firms interested in them and to choose from. Some of the current areas of particular interest to firms are private equity and M&A; investigations and compliance; and healthcare.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

123

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Risa Heller

Risa Heller Communications

New York

Crisis Communications

Bruce Hennes

Hennes Communications

Cleveland

Crisis Management

Paul Holmes

Finsbury Glover Hering

New York

Crisis Communications

Vivian Hood

Jaffe

Jacksonville

Crisis Communications

Kay Hoppe

Credentia

Chicago

Professional Recruiting

Stacy Humphries

Pye Legal Group

Houston

Professional Recruiting

Natasha Innocenti

Macrae

San Francisco

Professional Recruiting

Terry Isner

Jaffe

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Martin Jenewein

SMJ Partners Consulting

Vienna, Austria

Crisis Communications

Clint Johnson

Johnson Downie

Houston

Professional Recruiting

Jennifer Johnson

Calibrate Legal

Austin

Marketing & Communications

Mary Jummati

Morae

Chicago

Management Consulting

Mark Jungers

Lippman Jungers Bala

Chicago

Professional Recruiting

Karen Kaplowitz*

New Ellis Group

New Hope, Pa.

Business Development Advisor

Daniel Kidd

Kidd Aitken

London

Media – Directory Maven

Jacquelyn Knight

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiting

Sang Lee

Thine

Brooklyn

Professional Recruiting

Ann Lee Gibson*

Ann Lee Gibson Consulting

West Plains, Mo.

Management Consulting

Molly Levinson

The Levinson Group

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

James Leviton

Finsbury Glover Hering

London

Crisis Communications

124

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

JAQUELYN KNIGHT

BY ALISON PREECE

JACQUELYN KNIGHT IS ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. She came to the world of legal recruiting after working as a litigator for the National Labor Relations Board, then taking a decade off to raise three children.

When she was ready to refocus on her career, she was still interested in the legal industry but looking for something different. She worked with a career counselor to determine her various aptitudes and he pointed her towards the world of legal recruiting. It turned out to be a great fit, especially once she moved to partner recruiting and found an easy kinship with her clients, many of whom became long-term friends. Knight is now a Partner at Major, Lindsey & Africa, where she handles partner moves, new office openings and mergers, all while working to foster collaboration between her global offices – even throughout the current pandemic. Lawdragon: Tell us about the work you do for MLA. Jacquelyn Knight: I regularly place high-profile partners and groups, mostly at global, AmLaw firms. I am a partner at the largest recruiting firm in the world. We are consistently ranked as the top recruiting firm. We have a great brand and a really talented team. Although I grew up as a litigator, I work across practice groups, with litigation and corporate partners. I also work with attorneys moving into private practice from government positions. I am very close to my law firm clients who often give me repeat, targeted work on strategic searches. Many of my directives come from law firm chairs, managing partners and practice group leaders. On the candidate side, many of the attorneys I work with are referred to me through partners in my network. My MLA colleagues often call on me to collaborate on high profile partner and group deals. LD: How did you get into this type of work? JK: I grew up working in the service industry, in retail and at numerous busy restaurants. I liked the hustle and rhythm of the crew on busy shifts. I

PHOTO BY PETER VIDOR

enjoyed the camaraderie of the team and working together to provide a great experience for the customer. At one elite restaurant, I worked my way up from bussing tables to Captain. I learned about customer service and working in high pressure situations. In college, I studied economics and theater. I studied classic ballet as a kid and I always loved the combination of music and theater. I went to college near Lincoln Center, where I was surrounded by great minds and creativity. It was an incredible foundation for the work I would do later in life. Following law school, I became a litigator at the National Labor Relations Board. I learned that I was adept at juggling many cases, mediating and settling disputes. As young attorneys we went out in the field and took statements, ran elections, argued cases before Administrative Law Judges, appeared in Federal Court, heard Representation cases and wrote decisions. It was a fascinating job full of new cases and opportunities to learn more. I then took 10 years off to raise three children. During that time, I did volunteer work and fundraising; I also sat on a number of boards in my community. One day when reading The New

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

125

100

I REGULARLY PLACE HIGH-PROFILE PARTNERS AND GROUPS, MOSTLY AT GLOBAL, AMLAW FIRMS. ALTHOUGH I GREW UP AS A LITIGATOR, I WORK ACROSS PRACTICE GROUPS, WITH LITIGATION AND CORPORATE PARTNERS. I ALSO WORK WITH ATTORNEYS MOVING INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE FROM GOVERNMENT POSITIONS. York Times – in the old days when people actually read the physical paper – I saw an ad of a career consultant. “Are you an attorney who wants a new career?” I responded to the ad and met with the career consultant. He was 80 years old and I was his last client. I took many written tests and assessments over two months. I tested off the charts in crisis management skills and math problems. At the end of the process, he told me I should become a legal recruiter. I had no idea what the job entailed. I researched, interviewed, and received multiple offers. Then it was off to the races. LD: Incredible. And it sounds like you really enjoy this second career? JK: Absolutely. I started my career at MLA in 2005, working with associates. I then transitioned to partner work in 2008. Working with partners, everything just clicked for me. We spoke the same language. We were the same age. We were attorneys. We confronted similar life struggles and successes. It was a just a great fit. I enjoyed the intellectual and social aspects of meeting new partner candidates and clients. I’m Italian, and many of my family and friends are in the restaurant business, which led to fabulous meetings over great food and wine. I took on many challenging assignments and threw myself into searches. I read and studied everything. I waited for articles on partner moves to post every morning. Over time, those articles were about my deals. LD: That must have been a great feeling. Is there a placement from your career that stands out as a favorite or particularly memorable for some reason?

126

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

JK: I’ve worked on mergers, opened offices for firms and placed hundreds of partners. However, one placement stands out for me because of how my colleague and I closed it. I worked with a female attorney. She was just great, both personally and professionally. In the end she had three offers. The best fitting firm was an offer 25 percent below the others. We sat in an MLA conference room and discussed the compensation differential. I called the managing partner of the firm with the lower offer. His assistant said, “He will meet you now at a bar at Grand Central and he has about 10 minutes before his next meeting.” I ran out of my conference room and sprinted five blocks – not an easy task in a suit and heels – praying he would wait and hear me out. I got there in the nick of time and made an impassioned plea for the extra compensation that I needed to close the deal. The whole time he looked down at his phone, typing away. When he looked up he said, “We are done.” I didn’t know what he meant. He said “You’ve got the money. Go close the deal.” I ran back to my office conference room and we celebrated. Today, 10 years later, that partner is now a leader at the firm. I still smile when I think of that sprint down 44th Street. LD: That is such a good story about that New York hustle! How has your workflow changed since the pandemic? Have industry moves picked up or slowed down? JK: Last month, my colleague and I closed a group deal that was done 100 percent virtually. I have several more “virtual deals” in the pipeline, with two closing this month. The virtual interview has most definitely arrived. Meetings can move

100

quickly due to the lack of travel. While a few firms have put the brakes on hiring during the start of the pandemic, most firms are taking advantage of the situation, pushing strong partners to the offer stage. If the candidate is a good strategic fit, they are moving through processes quickly. Currently, Restructuring, Finance, Health Care, and Life Sciences are very busy. I placed a high profile commercial litigator last month. That said, there are always huge swings at my level and you need to maintain a long game mindset. Relationship building is key. Some deals take years to close. Even the best recruiters will lose a deal on occasion and I try to keep a sense of humor and not beat myself up when that happens. Sometimes the deal is not lost, but just a delayed placement that closes the following year. Oh – and I celebrate every win, usually over a great meal. LD: Are you involved in any initiatives at your firm that are meaningful to you? JK: I’ve been very involved with training and mentoring at my firm. I’ve made great new relationships and strengthened old ones. I run market calls with my colleagues from 27 offices. We share intel across continents. It’s fascinating to hear from my colleagues all over the globe. It’s so interesting to learn what they are doing for shared law firm clients. I am very fortunate that I am called by different colleagues and clients every week to work on new searches. It keeps my practice diversified and exciting. I never know what the next day will bring. I really enjoy collaborating with friends on searches. We all have different strengths and bring different backgrounds and experiences to the search. Every time I work with a colleague I learn something new and grow as a recruiter. LD: Did you have mentors early on?

JK: My parents were teachers and always had side jobs. I listened to my dad close real estate deals on the phone. I listened to my mom deal with customers at a business my parents owned on Shelter Island, New York. A few restaurant owners on Shelter Island influenced my view of needing to be “all in” for your staff and customers. They gave 100 percent every day. I was so impressed by their professionalism and the mantras – the client is always right, even when they weren’t. I learned lessons of resilience and humility from all of these mentors early on. When I joined Major, Lindsey & Africa, Jon Lindsey hired and mentored me. I tried my best to replicate what he did with candidates and clients. I knew if I could follow his lead and earn their respect and trust, I would be successful. He is so smart and such a class act. Jon has always been a great resource and a cheerleader who is genuinely happy for my successes. He encouraged me to be myself and inspired me to make partner. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? JK: I travel all over the world. My daughter has lived in Europe and Asia and it gave me an opportunity to explore these continents over the last decade. I love to be near or on the water. At heart I will always be a (Shelter) island kid. I am happiest when I cook for my family and friends. I love spending time out with clients and candidates and experiencing great food and conversation. Many of my work contacts are my close friends today. I love keeping in contact with them and hearing about the changes in their lives. I am forever grateful to the 80-year-old career counselor. By the way, I still keep in contact with him, too.

WHEN I JOINED MAJOR, LINDSEY & AFRICA, JON LINDSEY HIRED AND MENTORED ME. HE IS SO SMART AND SUCH A CLASS ACT. JON HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GREAT RESOURCE AND A CHEERLEADER WHO IS GENUINELY HAPPY FOR MY SUCCESSES. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

127

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Jon Lindsey*

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiting

Sabina Lippman

Lippman Jungers Bala

Los Angeles

Professional Recruiting

Harlan Loeb

Argyle

Chicago

Crisis Communications

Andrew Longstreth

Infinite Global

New York

Media & Communications

Jeffrey Lowe

Major Lindsey & Africa

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Vijay Luthra

Lippman Jungers Bala

New York

Professional Recruiting

Joe Macrae

Macrae

San Francisco

Professional Recruiting

Tim Maltin

Maltin PR

Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom

Crisis Communications

Myron Marlin

FTI Consulting

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Stefanie Marrone

Stefanie Marrone Consulting

New York

Social Media

Jeff McAndrews

Finsbury Glover Hering

Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Ian McCaleb

Mercury

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Amy McCormack

McCormack Schreiber

Chicago

Professional Recruiting

Eleanor McManus

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Bobbie McMorrow

McMorrow Consulting

Summerland, Calif.

Professional Recruiting

Deborah McMurray

Content Pilot

Dallas

Marketing, Branding & Technology

Ryan McSharry

Infinite Global

London

Media & Communications

James MelvilleRoss

FTI Consulting

London

Crisis Communications

Gary Miles

Miles Partner Placement

Tustin, Calif.

Professional Recruiting

128

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

RYAN M C SHARRY

BY JOHN RYAN

THE TOP OUTSIDE PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS

excel at guiding law firms and other clients through high-profile litigation and other reputational challenges. The very best, like Infinite Global, also see strategic opportunities for clients during enormously complex phases – including, for example, the ongoing era defined by a global pandemic and sweeping social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. Among Infinite’s innovators in this area is its head of the professional services group in the UK, Ryan McSharry, who stresses that dealing with PR “landmines” proactively is easier than cleaning up problems later. McSharry also led the firm’s datadriven analysis of the media footprint of large law firms with its publication “The Global 200 in Profile.” Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide? Ryan McSharry: I provide strategic PR services to domestic and international clients, advising on their media, brand and marketing communications activity. I also specialize in crisis and litigation scenarios, working to mitigate risk and protect reputations when it matters most. In the legal space, I have been lucky to work on significant and high-profile matters and I regularly advise leading city law firms, and individual lawyers, on the full spectrum of communications activities, from corporate positioning and the business of law to campaigns and contentious issues, which in recent years have ranged from cyber-breach and financial restructuring to collective actions and market manipulation. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve worked on for a legal client? RM: A number come to mind – it’s an interesting job. Certainly one of the more remarkable was working with the former managing director of a global retail brand in relation to criminal charges brought by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to a £250M accounting scandal. In close collaboration with his legal counsel, my team and I provided comprehensive litigation PR and personal reputation management support over an extended, and very eventful, period: The first trial was halted on the eve of verdict due to a codefendant’s ill health and the second collapsed after

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

the judge ruled that there was no case to answer. It was an extraordinary defeat for the SFO. The very public acquittal of the defendants raised serious questions not only about its decision to prosecute, but also its decision to strike a £129M plea bargain with the retailer since no one was convicted. 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? RM: Yes, crisis management and reputation are at the top of the agenda. The events over the last 18 months represent of a quantum leap in terms of how organizations’ risk profiles have evolved. The unprecedented shock of Covid-19, as well as the significant impact of the Black Lives Matter movement and others, have left an indelible mark upon the nature of reputation management for individuals and brands in every corner of the economy. In this new reality, new – or significantly adapted – thinking is required, particularly as narratives both positive and negative have the potential to spread like wildfire. We’re seeing that the traditional risk management approach is being replaced by the need to be more informed, scenario-tested and capable of dealing with emerging risks that can move

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

129

100

THE PANDEMIC HAS INTENSIFIED CRITICAL QUESTIONS AROUND THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL SECTOR IN SOCIETY AND THE NATURE OF GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP. from being on the horizon to being front of mind very quickly. There is also an awareness that the pandemic has created an unprecedented opportunity to build business resilience by investigating and uncovering reputational landmines: Getting your house in order is always better than scrambling to clean up a mess. In the legal sector specifically, we are busy working with leadership teams as they engage in reflection and reorientation around the extent to which stakeholder expectations have shifted. The pandemic has changed the rules of the game, and law firms need to adapt their thinking accordingly. The pandemic has intensified critical questions around the role of the legal sector in society and the nature of good corporate citizenship. Firms seen to be failing in their duty towards employees, supply chain partners and other stakeholders, or acting out of step with prevailing public sentiment around broader societal responsibilities, should expect significant scrutiny. LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside advisor? RM: External PR support is very powerful, but success depends on finding the right partner. Most top law firms will employ an outside team of media professionals, but we can only really make a difference if we are treated as an extended part of the internal team, fully briefed and able to advise strategically. Too many clients think that they need to keep PR consultants behind the scenes, which is a mistake: The outside team’s success is your success. The relationship needs investment from both sides, but the really important thing is to keep lines of communications fluid and continuous. Where emergent reputational issues arise make sure that the external media advisors are always some of the first people to be told – your consultants can only be as effective as you allow them to be, it’s no use bringing them in when it’s too late. LD: To the extent your business involves innovation in the legal industry, what is it you are trying to achieve that will help your clients or their business?

130

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

RM: The best PR campaigns always start with understanding – an understanding of your target audience, the wider media landscape and, ultimately, how your story is received – and the increasing quality of campaign information now available presents multiple opportunities for innovation. In a digital world, data is driving an increasingly intelligent approach to PR, and one that the legal industry is starting to embrace. Indeed, I recently used new data insights and original analysis to create a first-of-its-kind report that quantifies and benchmarks law firm profiles. By investigating the media footprints of the Global 200 law firms, the report openly defines parameters for media success and explores the process behind excellent media performance. In continuing to leverage data insights to monitor profiles, measure success and document challenges overcome, we can better understand the efficacy of our communications and further evolve best PR practices, not just for our clients but for the benefit of the industry at large. LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities? Please tell us what you find meaningful about your time serving them. RM: We recently unveiled a new initiative across our global business to contribute significant resources to the fight against the impacts of climate change. At the heart of the program is a firm-wide commitment to undertake pro bono media activity for clients that relates directly to their efforts to combat climate change. Further efforts include joining the SME Climate Commitment, which is recognized by the United Nations Race to Zero campaign and requires the firm to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, if not sooner. Such activity is not commonplace in the PR industry, but we believe it to be a critical part of generating real momentum. It is our hope that by contributing our communications and stakeholder engagement expertise we can help to make a tangible difference on this crucial issue.

100

MELINDA WALLMAN

BY KATRINA DEWEY

IT WOULD BE HARD TO CONCEIVE OF A MORE

perfect background for a top global legal recruiter than that of Melinda Wallman.

The London-based partner at Macrae loved law school, but never really wanted to become a practicing lawyer. So when her mother needed help starting a business, Wallman almost without hesitation left her position as a corporate attorney at top-flight Sydney firm Gilbert + Tobin and rolled up her sleeves. Her mother’s business? Gem dealership. Finding and selling those wonderful sparkling jewels, formerly diamonds in the rough. While trying to figure out a long-term career plan, Wallman visited a friend at Harvard and found herself at a university bookshop, mesmerized. “They probably had the best selection of career guidance, self-help books that you could get anywhere in the world,” Wallman recalls. “I bought everything. I pulled them all out and I read them all, and I absolutely loved it.” On the same trip, she visited and fell in love with New York City. She realized whatever profession she chose would have to bring her back. “Law could have done that,” she says, “but not for me. I wasn’t good enough. I was very clear on what my goals were and what I was good at. I was good at marketing. I loved the legal profession, but I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I wanted an international career that would get me to New York, and I wanted to make money. What else was I going to do? Legal recruitment.” A realist, she admitted to herself that the odds were against an Australian going straight to New York as a legal recruiter. “In those days, there weren’t any Australian lawyers even in New York,” she says. “I thought, ‘The way to get to New York is via London.’ There was a very clearly trodden path between Australia and London; all ambitious Aussies worked in London.” Her brother, who was an attorney in the British capital, introduced her to legal recruiters there but the initial hiring managers looked at her credentials – she was still running the gem business – and thought, “What does this woman bring?”

PHOTO BY HELEN JONES

Wallman recalls. “’She’s selling necklaces. Why are we are going to hire this woman?’ Nobody really wanted to hire me, and that was fine, but I didn’t give up on it. I knew what I wanted to do, and I knew somehow I’d make it happen.” So she spent her time networking, keeping abreast of the relevant news and strategizing. One day, while perusing the Australian Financial Review, she found a tiny ad for a London legal recruitment firm, Garfield Robbins, that was opening a Sydney office and seeking an attorney with start-up experience. “I saw it and thought, ‘Oh, my God, that’s my job,’” Wallman says. “‘I’m not going to let that job go. That’s my job.’” And so it proved, the first step on an odyssey that would take her to the storied recruitment firm Major, Lindsey & Africa and then to Macrae, where her primary focus is placing partners in AmLaw 100 firms and top 20 UK law firms. A diversity recruiting expert, Wallman operates a consultancy, XX Advantage, that specializes in advancing the careers of women lawyers and recently co-founded Reignite Academy, a program

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

131

100

GOOD RECRUITERS LOVE THE DEALS. YOU’VE ALWAYS GOT TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK, BUT YOU HAVE TO TRUST YOUR GUT. THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. I LOVE THE ONES WHERE IT’S THE IMPOSSIBLE SEARCH. geared toward attorneys reigniting their careers after a hiatus.

conferencing equipment. It was super exciting. It’s a great business, and I absolutely loved it.

Lawdragon: That’s a fascinating career arc. And you really never wanted to become a lawyer? Why did you go to law school?

When I finally decided it was time for me to go to New York, H-1B visas were really hard to get, but I did my homework and spoke to a bunch of people. I knew what I needed to do. They didn’t really have the internet in those days, so you had to get a printed list of all the big recruiters, which I did, and I literally applied to every legal recruiter in New York. I took myself off there with my little Aussie suit and my little Aussie dollars in my purse, and I interviewed. I remember doing 15 interviews and getting, I think, about 11 or 12 offers. I thought, “My God, I am so blessed.” Then I realized it was all commission-only, you didn’t get paid anything else, so I wasn’t really a superstar. And just thought, “What am I going to do?”

Melinda Wallman: My father, who was a doctor, had died, and I had a really tough year in my final year of high school. I just didn’t know what I wanted to do and thought, “I’ll play it safe. I’ll do an arts degree and law degree and see where that takes me.” I ended up being a lawyer because that’s what you do when you go to law school, but I was never interested in the commercial law side. I hadn’t taken many commercial law subjects. I was always interested in social-impact issues, so I took courses focused on things like human rights, women, Aborigines and intellectual property. So when it came to getting a job with a law firm, I really hadn’t done anything relevant, but I always loved the idea of law, I loved the people and I loved marketing. Absolutely loved marketing. I’m not quite sure how I landed the job at Gilbert + Tobin, which is a very good firm, or how I kept it, because I really was a terrible lawyer. So much so that when I met some of my mates for drinks after leaving, a few of them were joking with me, “Hey, Melinda, we’ve taken over your files, and you made the right decision.” LD: That’s funny. So when you started with Garfield Robbins in Sydney, your long-term goal was getting to New York? MW: Yes. Really, I took that job because I knew it would give me the international experience I needed to do that. We started the first wave of Australians coming to London en masse and joining the Magic Circle firms and then other firms. We were the first people to have video-

132

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

But I always knew I wanted to work for Major, Lindsey & Africa; I just liked the brand. And that was the worst interview I had. I remember interviewing with Jon Lindsey, who had to leave the interview halfway through because his mother had taken a turn for the worse. It was just a disaster, but I’d already decided I wanted to work at MLA, and so that’s what I did. I took that job, and it was commission-only, but they got me the visa. Of course, it was much harder than I thought. I got to New York and I brought my lunch every day for the first seven months and I didn’t spend any money. I’d go home to my tiny 300-squarefoot studio and read the Vault Reports and tried to study up on the market. Eventually, I realized that I was never going to be able to compete with the New York recruiters and I had to come up with something else. So I developed international business, and I started placing New Yorkers into the UK and Asia, and I started placing Brits and Aussies into New York.

100

LD: Genius. MW: It was a whole new revenue stream for the firm. That’s how I made partner. I developed a new way of doing business, that I’d learned at Garfield Robbins. It played to my strengths, and it was great. KD: That was so insightful of you. Maybe your business background comes into this, but when you’re in a box and you need to find your way out, you figure it out, right? MW: You know, you have to. So after New York came Hong Kong. Major, Lindsey & Africa was way ahead of its competitors in terms of its international strategy and they saw that Asia was rising before anyone else did. Instead of going to London first, which was the obvious place to go, they went to Hong Kong. We were really lucky, because I ended up doing a huge deal where I placed 18 lawyers into Shearman & Sterling in my first two months in Hong Kong, which took some of the pressure off. But then, as soon as I got there, we had the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) pandemic. Like Covid, version one. Everything closed down. Most of the other legal recruiters closed down. We were the last man standing. We weren’t going to close down. We built up. We hired some good recruiters from other shops that had closed down, and that really got the business running. We did really well. LD: Incredible. So as New York firms and others were exporting, you were the person that was supplying them lawyers? MW: Yes. We were placing U.S. lawyers who spoke Mandarin into China. I was placing Aussies into Hong Kong and China and Asia and likewise placing Brits. And then, of course, we developed the local market, which was much, much harder. That’s where you really get your stripes is developing a local database. LD: Tell me some of the things that you have most enjoyed about recruiting. MW: It’s always about the relationships, isn’t it? It’s about the teams that you develop, and I just love building businesses as well. Having a vision, writing a business plan, and then, year on year, making it happen, and one day looking around to see, “Look what we built. We make a profit. We’ve

got a fantastic group of people. We’re high quality. We like each other. People like us.” I love that stuff. Just doing the deals as well. Good recruiters love the deals. You’ve always got to do your homework, but you have to trust your gut. Thinking outside the box. I love the ones where it’s the impossible search. Where a client sends you out to find candidates that don’t exist, or if they do, they won’t be willing to move, and you’ve got to think outside the box. I love those. They’re really fun. LD: How do you find that person? How do you find the unicorn? MW: At this point, I know a lot of people, but really, it’s everything. The first place to start is lowhanging fruit. What’s in your head, who do you currently know, who are the first people coming to your mind? Next place is the database. Then proper market-mapping, which is both desk-based market mapping and target networking, research. And at this point, I just know a lot of people and I think people trust me. People know if they tell me something that it’s not going anywhere. I will always share information with them that’s not confidential. It’s an information-based business and information is currency, but people now know that I’m very careful with information. I think that’s the big differentiator between the good guys and the bad guys: being careful with information. LD: Can we talk a bit about diversity? Because it seems to me sometimes that firms treat inclusiveness as a quest for unicorns, acting like it’s impossible to find qualified women and minority candidates. MW: I think between 30 percent and 40 percent of my placements every year are female. Actually, if you look at what Reignite Academy has done, everyone we’ve placed has been female, and 35 percent of those have been either Black, Asian or ethnic minorities. I actually see it as part of my role to push the minority candidates. Too often, organizations pay lip service to diversity, and it’s so ironic, because so many organizations do a lot of work to try to increase the number of women coming into the firm, but then the hiring of lateral partners is dilutive, which means they’ll never meet their targets. Also, there’s really a need for better processes around diversity hiring. Firms need to think very carefully about how to recruit better to be attractive to women. To this day, firms will bring in

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

133

100 a female candidate and schedule their first 10 meetings with men. When you do that, you end up losing those female candidates to another firm that’s just better organized or is asking the right questions and responding in the right way for women, who tend to do more due diligence than men. Women ask much harder questions. They always review the partnership agreement. The other big thing with women is that they are much more likely to join a firm where they know someone already. It’s really hard to get women to join a firm where they don’t know anyone. It’s a big divider between men and women, in my experience. LD: Let’s talk a little about Macrae. Can you tell me how you’re enjoying it and what the experience has been like? MW: I joined the firm three years ago and absolutely love it. Honestly, it is the most fun. The database we have built is the best one I have ever seen, and I have seen some databases. It is extraordinary. Our knowledge management has to be second to none. The collective intelligence, the sharing of information, it’s just unbelievable. And the responsiveness around the firm when you need help, it’s instantaneous. We are building something very, very special here. It’s great to be a part of that. What I love is that this group makes you want to be better, because you don’t want to let your partners down. Everyone raises the benchmark for everybody else. LD: How has Covid-19 affected the business? MW: In the UK market, I think we were hit harder than the U.S. market early on. The market shut down the first three months and you hardly saw any moves. But everything came back to life in June and July of 2020, and 2021 has been a record-breaker in London and for the firm globally. Every time a team closes the biggest deal in the history of the firm, another team tops it. We do tend to work in teams as it is very difficult to run large group deals as a single consultant. LD: You mentioned Reignite Academy and the work you’ve done there. Tell me a little about how that came about. MW: I’d been asked by a UK law firm to participate in a program they had put together for some returners. They had really positive feedback and wanted me to do it again, but when I asked about

134

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

impact, they told me that no one had secured a job out of it. I wanted to change that, and they asked me to come up with a proposal. I rang Lisa Unwin, whom I’ve known through diversity and inclusion circles; she had just co-authored a book called “She’s Back: Your Guide to Returning to Work.” She’d done lots of research. She’s a former management consultant and really knows her stuff, so I asked her about collaborating on a project. She didn’t really have the time to take it on, but she suggested involving a third person, Stephanie Dillon, who runs an organization called Inclusivity and worked on returnship programs for big FTSE companies like Shell and Virgin Money. Eventually, the three of us had coffee one day in my office, and it was just unbelievable the way it all worked. We had this complete balance of skillsets and experience between us. Without knowing it, that day, we developed a business plan and we started a business. We figured out what we needed to do. We figured two weeks isn’t going to get you a job. It would need to be a six-month program, and it would need to be paid, so that women who were coming back to work could actually afford childcare. We knew that we couldn’t do it with any one organization, it would have to be a collaboration, and we figured getting six firms would be a magic number. LD: That’s fascinating. Having a program like that can make such a difference for people who have exceptional talent and experience to offer but have been out of the workforce and aren’t sure how to get back. In your own field, is there any specific advice, any tips, you’d offer to people who want to become legal recruiters? MW: You need to like people; if you don’t, I think that would be very, very difficult. You need very high emotional intelligence. You also need to be someone who’s organized and who can execute. The knowledge management piece is absolutely key. Playing the long game, absolutely key. Never be transactional. Always be relationship-driven. Do your homework, but always trust your gut. And then serve, serve, and serve. Simon Robinson, who’s the former CEO of Major, Lindsey & Africa, taught me about service. When I wake up in the morning I think, “I’m here to serve.” It’s a lovely way to be.

100

FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Patty Morrissy

Morrissy Legal Search

New York

Professional Recruiting

Ellen Moskowitz

Brunswick

New York

Crisis Communications

Victor Neary

Robert Half

St. Petersburg, Fla.

Professional Recruiting

Alex Nekrassov

New Century Media

London

Crisis Communications

Kathy O'Brien

Rubenstein

New York

Marketing & Communications

Zach Olsen

Infinite Global

San Francisco

Media & Communications

Ruth Pachman

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communications

Lloyd Pearson

Pearson Communications

Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Media – Directory Maven

Peter Pochna

Rubenstein

New York

Marketing & Communications

Charlie Potter

Brunswick

London

Crisis Communications

Nick Pournader

P&C Global

Toronto

Management Consulting

Blane Prescott

MesaFive

San Francisco

Management Consulting

Pat Rafferty

Androvett

Dallas

Media & Communications

Melanie Riley

Bell Yard

London

Crisis Communications

Allan Ripp

Ripp Media & Public Relations

New York

Media & Communications

Jane Roberts

Macrae

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Gina Rubel

Furia Rubel Communications

Doylestown, Pa.

Public Relations

Andy Russell

Macrae

London

Professional Recruiting

Joy Saphla

Morae

Houston

Strategy & Business Performance

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

135

100

NICK POURNADER

FEW LEADING CONSULTANTS AND ADVISORS

to the legal space bring the range of private sector experience as Nick Pournader, who has excelled in leadership roles across a range of industries. The CEO of P&C Global says that his team of 850 professionals is not a traditional consulting firm merely offering advice to clients; instead, the firm commits contractually to implementing solutions in addition to providing strategy and guidance. P&C Global eschews “cookie-cutter” approaches when helping law firms tackle their most important problems, a philosophy that has become especially critical with the unique set of complexities posed by the global pandemic. Lawdragon: Could you please share with us some of your career highlights? Nick Pournader: I started my career immediately after finishing my undergraduate degree at the age of 18, and always worked very hard at every challenge presented to me while concurrently furthering my education. That being said, there have been three major inflection points that have influenced my career. The first one was an enormous enterprise software industry wave – the emergence of 136

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY JOHN RYAN

Software-as-a-Service or cloud-based software as we know it today – where I was at the right place at the right time, first at SunGard, and then at Oracle. At those companies, I was charged with the responsibility of creating their cloud-based businesses that previously didn’t exist in the marketplace. I developed and launched the cloud enterprise software at SunGard, growing it to $50M annual revenue run rate within its first year. And, at Oracle, started what is now NetSuite – a leading cloud enterprise software company. Later on, I wanted to be involved in an entrepreneurial endeavor and took a first-of-a-kind C-level leadership position at a then small plaintiffs’ class action law firm where I played a key role in turning that organization into one of the top five industry leaders. I then pivoted from there to start my own business – a cloud-based healthcare analytics company, which was acquired by BlueCross BlueShield, and then the creation of P&C, where I am CEO today. LD: What are the types of services P&C provides to the legal industry and why is that satisfying or interesting? NP: P&C helps solve the most complex business problems that strike the desks of CEOs. Whether

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

WHAT IS MOST GRATIFYING IS THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT, AND JOY, OF BRINGING SOLUTIONS TO LIFE. WE DON’T JUST HAND OVER A ROADMAP OR AN IDEA, WE BRING THE SOLUTION TO REALITY AND DELIVER A SIGNIFICANT TOP- AND/OR BOTTOM-LINE RESULT FOR OUR CLIENTS. identifying new markets and opportunities to explore, addressing some of their most challenging human resource and organizational issues, or transforming their businesses to be nimbler and more profitable, P&C is there to help solve their business problems, today and in the future. There are no cookie-cutter solutions at P&C. While our approach and methodologies are consistent and proven, every client and each engagement have elements that are unique to each client. What is most gratifying is that we have the benefit, and joy, of bringing solutions to life. We don’t just hand over a roadmap or an idea, we bring the solution to reality and deliver a significant top- and/or bottom-line result for our clients. We build relationships where CEOs trust us with their most complex problems, share information that we know and cherish to be confidential, as well as reveal their strategic insights. We work with them, their leadership teams and their employees to implement the solution for which they initially turned to us – and to make sure they get the desired business results. Furthermore, we are still around years later to help them adjust, answer their questions and be there as they have additional challenges they want to tackle. LD: What are some of the challenges and trends you are seeing in the industry? NP: All of our clients are experiencing the uncertainties associated with the pandemic – everything from determining when it will be safe to return to work and open their offices, to how can they cost-effectively allocate their workforce while balancing the challenges of more and more employees wanting to work remotely most or part of the time. In addition, we help clients determine what technologies, policies and approaches are

needed to support employees to maximize their sense of organization and allow them to feel that they are part of the team, while not losing the benefit of relationships that are formed when they work together day in and day out. For law firms themselves, we also consider the emerging challenges that their clients are facing. In turn, those law firms are seeking others to help them help their clients come up with solutions regarding, for instance, the best medical or safety protocols for returning to work. For these issues and others, clients are turning to P&C. We have to be on the forefront of pandemic safety protocols, business practices, and the enabling technologies because of the work we do across all industries. Profitability and revenue are also top concerns on the minds of law firm leaders. In particular, plaintiffs’ bar firms have been impacted by court closures and/or hearing date postponements. Law firms are looking for ways to effectively reduce their costs and not lose sight of their strategic investments, all while making sure their employees are cared for, mitigating any turnover, and reaping the benefit of having some flexibility of working remotely. That covers a lot of what we’ve been doing over the last two years, and it is constantly evolving. LD: How can clients work best with P&C? NP: P&C is not a typical consultancy in that we’re not there to just give clients advice. We’re there to provide guidance, strategy and expertise – and to implement the solutions that deliver the desired business outcomes. The most successful engagements are those where the client fully and openly shares their needs and concerns, gives us the data required for analyses, provides us the benefit of their time and insights, and works

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

137

100 with us to implement the solutions. Many times, clients have the notion that consultants fall into two categories: those that just facilitate meetings and present ideas regarding how to craft a solution; or very tactical technology consultants that implement a software system or manage their computer networks. While we certainly do those things for clients across multiple industries and have a strong track record of success, we are best engaged when the client shares the entirety of their business problems they are dealing with and then works with us to develop a solution and have us implement that solution – so the client sees the business return on their investment. Our uniqueness: We fix problems, deliver the business impact and commit to that contractually. We bring the solution to life – and implement that with their employees. This way, their employees learn to do this on their own, which develops their skill set and gives them the tools to solve problems in the future, independently. The best client relationships are those where there’s a high level of trust and the client shares their full set of needs, and trusts us to implement the solution, so they can immediately gain the benefit of why they went to a full-service consultancy to begin with. LD: Please share with us some of the qualities of your team. NP: In our hiring process, we focus on a few things. We do not hire any career consultants; rather we want people who have had significant experience in leadership positions in-house across multiple industries, people who understand the needs of the industry, those who have walked in the shoes of our clients and their employees, and know the business processes, technologies

and regulatory requirements. We also want the academic credentials combined with a deep and broad exposure across different industries in that individual’s career. When we recruit, we concentrate on professionals who have the requisite qualifications plus at least 10 years of experience – with increasing responsibility – in at least two industries that P&C serves. Most importantly, that person must be able to empathize with our clients and use their personal experiences to act on the challenges our clients are facing. When you look at the backgrounds of our people, you’ll see a lot of talent and tremendous combined experience, not only at an individual level but across our teams, and the ongoing training and professional development that we require – above and beyond what we normally see in the industry. LD: Why is P&C interested in serving law firms that may not be large international corporations? NP: We see law firms as a great opportunity because they are professional services firms, just like us. They are also highly educated, highly skilled professionals who are truly devoted to their work. We are experiencing tremendous change within the legal industry – and with that, an opportunity for law firms to be transformed into more profitable and nimble businesses, as well as to take on greater spaces in the market than they have done traditionally. We’re excited – and our people are excited – about working with law firms and proud of the results we’ve been able to achieve. We see tremendous opportunities of what we can do for them. Especially with law firms, they should consider a management consultancy as applicable to solving their problems – end to end, and for the long term.

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENTS ARE THOSE WHERE THE CLIENT FULLY AND OPENLY SHARES THEIR NEEDS AND CONCERNS, GIVES US THE DATA REQUIRED FOR ANALYSES, PROVIDES US THE BENEFIT OF THEIR TIME AND INSIGHTS, AND WORKS WITH US TO IMPLEMENT THE SOLUTIONS. 138

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

PATTY MORRISSY

IN THE WAR FOR TOP LEGAL TALENT, LARGE

law firms and financial institutions along the East Coast gain a significant edge from strategic minds like recruiter Patty Morrissy. Don’t take that from us, though. As Morrissy would advise: Do your due diligence before selecting a recruiter to work with you. Her remarkable experience ranges from being a recruitment leader for some of the nation’s highest-ranked law firms to guiding students’ careers out of law school. Her long tenure of building an organization’s legal talent has also included stints at a district attorney’s office and a global investment bank. Morrissy’s unique career path recently took another turn: After establishing the New York office of recruiting firm Macrae, Patty launched her own firm this year, known as Morrissy Legal Search. Lawdragon: Would you please describe your services in the legal search industry? Patty Morrissy: I place senior-level lawyers, individually and in groups. I also have experience in law office openings, and in-house searches in the financial services sector, but partner placements in Big Law is my sweet spot.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

BY AMY CARROLL

LD: How have you developed your current expertise? PM: My network is unique in that I have recruited lawyers on the firm side for most of my career with some of the best firms out there: Davis Polk, Paul Weiss and Sullivan & Cromwell. As a result, I have built life-long relationships with some of the most successful lawyers, and more importantly for the candidates I represent, I possess unique insight into how law firms and law departments think and reach decisions. After more than 30 years in the business, counseling lawyers on their careers is simply second nature to me. LD: Which aspects about this work are most professionally satisfying? What do you like about working with lawyers? PM: The best part of this business involves learning something new nearly every day. Senior-level lawyers have a unique perspective on the levers that drive our politics and economy, and speaking with them every day keeps me apprised in a way where I feel constantly on the cutting edge of business and political developments. LD: Can you share with us any trends you are seeing in search and recruiting, in terms of what is keeping you busy these days?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

139

100 PM: At a very high level, we are seeing the stratification of law firms become increasingly more pronounced. The war for talent has never been hotter. There are certainly economic forces at play resulting in, for instance, a robust M&A deal-making environment. But more than that, I believe firms learned an important lesson after the 2008 crash; that is, in the context of the pandemic, with uncertainty comes opportunity. And so what we’re seeing now are firms working on highly strategic moves, such as office openings and key accretive hires. At the same time, I am also starting to see increased guarantees on compensation packages, which is great for the candidates, but also feels a bit like a bubble. LD: Would you please tell us more about your career path? Did you work as a lawyer? What earlier jobs helped you navigate to recruiting? PM: I started as a recruiting assistant at Davis Polk. Ultimately I served as Chief Recruiting Officer at both Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Weiss, and as chief administrator for the legal and compliance department of Credit Suisse. In addition, I worked in the public sector heading Ken Thompson’s legal hiring program after he was elected as Brooklyn District Attorney, and then served as associate dean of career services at Cardozo Law School. I have literally seen the recruiting business from every angle! LD: In addition to those roles, was there a particular experience or mentor who helped shape the course of your professional life? PM: I have been exceedingly fortunate to have worked with some of the best leaders in the legal industry. There are so many, but in particular I would name Pierre Gentin, Karen Patton Seymour, Rodge Cohen, Kelley Cornish, Jeh Johnson, and Brad Karp. My professional life has been so enriched by these mentors, and I am extremely grateful to each of them for their ongoing friendship. LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a partner-level recruiter? What characteristics does it take to thrive in your area? PM: My style is highly professional, and I take great care in my work. In an industry where there is no barrier to entry, I work hard to maintain the reputation I have built over the past 30 years as someone who can be trusted. The other style element is that I love to hustle and win, which means ﬁnding solutions for both clients and candidates alike.

140

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

HAVING MY OWN COMPANY WAS ALWAYS A DREAM OF MINE. IT FEELS GREAT AT THIS STAGE OF MY CAREER TO WORK ON MY OWN TERMS. AND THE SKY’S THE LIMIT! LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside recruiter? PM: I would advise lawyers to check on the reputation of a recruiter before working with one. It’s easy to pick up a call from a random recruiter, but – like any good lawyer would do – there should be due diligence. Unfortunately, not all recruiters are trustworthy and you need to be careful about who you select to represent you. LD: You started your own business this year. Why did you decide to go out on your own instead of joining or staying with another company? PM: Having my own company was always a dream of mine. It feels great at this stage of my career to work on my own terms. And the sky’s the limit! I hired a wonderful colleague, and we are having a great time. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there – what would you say is your unique selling message? PM: By virtue of my career trajectory, I enjoy a very quick line into the most senior lawyers throughout the east coast. Few can match the access I am fortunate to enjoy. LD: Thank you so much for giving us a glimpse of your work world! What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? PM: I am a painter – I mostly paint portraits, but also landscapes. It’s a wonderful pastime. Of course I love spending time with my family as well – we’re big travelers and have been looking forward to our first post-pandemic international sojourn this year.

100

FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

George Sard

Sard Verbinnen & Co.

New York

Communications

Dawn Schneider

Schneider Group Media

New York

Media & Communications

Elonide Semmes*

Right Hat

New Orleans

Marketing & Branding

Michael Short

LawVision

Washington, D.C.

Legal Consulting

Michael Sitrick*

Sitrick

Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Nat Slavin

Wicker Park

Warren Smith

Smith Legal Search

Vancouver

Professional Recruiting

Renée Soto

Reevemark

New York

Crisis Communications

Michael Talve

The Expert Institute

New York

Litigation Consultant

Jeffrey Taufield

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communications

Paul Verbinnen

Sard Verbinnen & Co.

New York

Crisis Communications

Melinda Wallman

Macrae

London

Professional Recruiting

Larry Watanabe

Watanabe

Solana Beach, Calif.

Professional Recruiting

Dan Wilson

Mercury

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Berlin

Crisis Communications

Chicago

Management Consulting

Uwe Wolff Kent Zimmerman

Naïma Strategic Legal Services Zeughauser Group

Newport Beach, Calif.

Management Consulting

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

141

500

Hall of Fame We are thrilled to introduce the new members of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. These lawyers are among the most acclaimed of their generation, having led America’s signature law firms to unprecedented heights, achieved civil rights advances and changed our world for the better. The lawyers selected include dealmakers such as Sullivan & Cromwell’s Joe Shenker; Wachtell’s Edward Herlihy; and Kirkland’s David Fox. All-star litigators include Mary Alexander; McKool Smith’s Doug Cawley; Paul Weiss’ Jay Cohen; and Lieff Cabraser’s Elizabeth Cabraser. Also inducted this year is the remarkable former Delaware Vice Chancellor and Paul Weiss of counsel Stephen Lamb. Recognized here are three remarkable female lawyers we lost last year: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sullivan partner Alexandra Korry and Robins Kaplan partner Hollis Salzman. The magnitude of their loss mirrors the breadth of their achievements and impact on those they touched.

PHOTO BY ANNIE TRITT

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

143

500

2021

Lawdragon is proud to present Hall of Fame Lawyer Limelights this year with the following members. JAMES BOSTWICK

STUART GROSSMAN

Bostwick & Peterson Category: Litigators

Grossman Roth Category: Litigators

FRANK BRANSON

SKIP KEESAL

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson Category: Litigators

Keesal Young Category: Litigators

MICHAEL CIRESI

MICHAEL KELLY

Ciresi Conlin Category: Litigators

Walkup Melodia Category: Litigators

TY COBB

JON LINDSEY

Law Offices of Ty Cobb Category: Power Brokers

Major Lindsey Category: Consultants

144

JOHN DEGROOTE

KATHLEEN FLYNN PETERSON

DeGroote Partners Category: Litigators

Ciresi Conlin Category: Litigators

DONALD GODWIN

MICHAEL SITRICK

Godwin Bowman Category: Litigators

Sitick and Company Category: Consultants

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Terry Abeyta

Abeyta Nelson

Litigators

Mike Abourezk

Abourezk & Garcia

Litigators

Vicki Lafer Abrahamson

Abrahamson Rdzanek

Litigators

Mary Alexander

Mary Alexander & Associates

Litigators

Greg Allen

Beasley Allen

Litigators

D. Leon Ashford

Hare Wynn

Litigators

Scott Atlas

Atlas Counsel Search

Consultants

Vincent Bartolotta Jr.

Thorsnes Bartolotta

Litigators

Lynne Bernabei

Bernabei & Kabat

Litigators

Stephen Berzon

Altshuler Berzon

Litigators

Lisa Blue

Athea Trial Lawyers

Litigators

Patricia Bobb

Patricia C. Bobb & Associates

Litigators

Kathleen Bogas

Bogas & Koncius

Litigators

Mary Bonauto

GLAD

Leadership

Michael Boone

HaynesBoone

Dealmakers

James Bostwick

Bostwick & Peterson

Litigators

Margaret Moses Branch

Branch Law Firm

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

145

500

JAMES BOSTWICK

BOSTWICK & PETERSON

EVEN NOW, A QUARTER-CENTURY AFTER

his death, Melvin Belli is important enough to command his own encyclopedia entry. Not just in Wikipedia, known for its extravagantly democratic approach to such matters, but in Encyclopedia Britannica. In the 1980s, when the family of a man left a quadriplegic after an automobile crash asked young San Francisco attorney James Bostwick to sue him for legal malpractice, Belli was already a living legend. Having won millions of dollars for a roster of clients that included Hollywood A-listers including Mae West and Lana Turner, Belli had in 1954 been dubbed the “King of Torts” by Life magazine and gone on to defend Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner who shot Lee Harvey Oswald to death after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

Known for his eye-catching trial exhibits, Belli made a habit of raising the traditional pirate’s flag, the Jolly Roger, over his San Francisco offices and firing a cannon whenever he won a case. He had even appeared on an episode of the original “Star Trek”

146

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY JAMES LANGFORD

TV series alongside William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, playing a villain portentously dubbed the “Friendly Angel.” Taking on Belli was folly, Bostwick’s friends told him. Suing him in San Francisco was tantamount to madness. “He was, nationally, probably considered the best lawyer in the country at the time in terms of public opinion,” Bostwick recalls. “All the jurors were practically worshiping him when we ﬁrst came into the courtroom.” Bostwick was undeterred. He went ahead, arguing in court that Belli’s ﬁrm, which had won a $250,000 settlement for the young car-crash victim, had failed to identify potential medical malpractice claims that could have garnered far more. The trial lasted nine weeks, but in the end, Bostwick won $6.4M, the largest legal malpractice jury verdict in San Francisco history at the time. That’s just one of an array of records set by the University of California at Hastings Law alum who went

PHOTO BY RORY EARNSHAW

500

on to found the San Francisco-based ﬁrm of Bostwick & Peterson.

Lawdragon: Tell me about creating a character based on yourself. What was that like?

In the late 1970s, he obtained a $7.6M medical malpractice verdict that was the largest in the country at the time and has set more records – and broken some of his own – since.

James Bostwick: In a large measure, of course Matt is me. But he also is very much an independent person. He does things that I wouldn’t do. I would do things he wouldn’t do. Like literary characters often can, which I ﬁnd fascinating, he developed a life of his own. They start doing things you’d never imagined that they would. I didn’t follow an outline. I just wrote.

As recently as 2018, Bostwick won a $14M settlement just before trial in a neonatal brain-injury case. The next year, Bostwick and his partner, Erik Peterson, obtained a $17M settlement for a woman whose child suffered a severe brain injury after medical providers failed to treat a routine infection during pregnancy. The infection turned septic, and the mother was hospitalized and nearly died. These settlements are particularly difficult to obtain in a state where non-economic damages are still capped at $250,000. Plaintiffs’ lawyers take on such cases – some of them seemingly no-win situations – bearing the financial risk and investing months of labor “because we fall in love with these clients,” Bostwick says. “They are people that need help and there’s nobody helping them except, maybe, us. We can’t fix them, but we might be able to make their lives a little better.” Sometimes, the lawyers change their own lives in the process. Taking Melvin Belli to trial, for instance, proved the catalyst for Bostwick – a fan of legal thrillers by John Grisham and Scott Turow – to begin writing a novel of his own, inspired by the case and liberally sprinkled with Hollywood pixie dust. His now 27-year-old daughter was a baby at the time, and it would take decades – including a years-long hiatus – to finish. “Acts of Omission,” whose protagonist Matt Taylor is loosely based on Bostwick himself, was published by Post Hill Press in May 2019. The first edition of the book sold out, Bostwick says, and a paperback version was released in mid-2020, just as bookstores closed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Sales of an audio version from Audible.com “went crazy,” he says, and the tale is now being adapted into a movie by well-known screenwriter Michael Schiffer and Hollywood producer Jeff Apple. A former client of Bostwick’s, Amanda Moriarty, is assisting with the project, providing her personal perspective since she became a quadriplegic as a teenager.

LD: You just wrote. JB: Just stream of consciousness and Lord, he started doing things that shocked me. Surprised me. There are a lot of differences between Matt and me, in terms of details and in terms of approach to things, but some of it is very much me because it certainly helps to draw on your own thinking. You’re creating the character. Many of the people in the book are very, very real people that I know, and then some of them are amalgamations. They’re completely created out of my head. Without being too obvious about it, I tried to make sure the reader can understand why the lawyer is doing what he’s doing in certain situations and what his reaction to events is and why. LD: While you were going through the trial, did you have any inkling that this was a very cinematic contest? Or were you just so enmeshed in fighting for your client and trying to get justice for your client against this very powerful lawyer that the cinematic quality of it was not even a consideration? JB: The cinematic element was probably there, but I wasn’t thinking about it. It had all the elements, though. Because I was in my late 30s, I was told by everybody that I was crazy to take on a guy like Belli. The media loved him, and he was very powerful in the local bar and in the national bar, he was in all the big groups that invite you in if you haven’t made anybody mad. I eventually became president of an organization that, when I was originally nominated, he threatened to leave. Maybe they let me in because they were hoping he would quit! I don’t know. LD: It took a lot of courage to take him on and to see him as a defendant – possibly a difficult one to sue – but somebody who had messed up and caused harm to somebody. JB: That’s the thing that you go through. There was no question that he was one of the most impressive early innovators in our field. The guy had a remark-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

147

500 ably creative approach to how to try a case. And he was brilliant and clearly was head and shoulders over most other trial lawyers in the country, though that changed, of course, over time. You don’t want to think that a person who is that important to what you do had really messed up, but it became clear to me that he had. LD: As a lawyer yourself, was there anything you hoped to accomplish with the book that you feel like other authors in the genre haven’t done? JB: For sure. One is that many of the books that deal with trial law are really pretty inauthentic when they talk about what happens in the courtroom. They do things for effect, but they really aren’t things that happen in a courtroom in real life. Everything that is in “Acts of Omission” is meant to be authentic. And I think most people who are trial lawyers have been pleased that it is very real but it’s still fun and interesting. LD: You deﬁnitely kept it lively. JB: It’s funny. I used to complain to my wife that the legal thrillers were not very authentic and they were all about criminal law. She said, “Well, then write one of your own,” and she signed me up to a novel-writing course, and that’s what got me started. LD: So you were reading a lot of legal novels before you ever thought about doing this? JB: Deﬁnitely. I’ve loved reading since I was a little kid growing up in the hot Imperial Valley desert. At 8, 9, 10 years old, I would go and get seven books at a time, read them and then take them back and get seven more in the summer, when it was 120 degrees outside.

LD: They are. And those are obviously things you’re very good at, based on your record. What has it been like seeing your brainchild adapted for the silver screen? JB: It’s thrilling. I’m actually working right now on helping them revise the screenplay. As much as I can, I’m trying to make sure the screenplay lives up to the goal I had for the book of being authentic and having a basis in the reality of the law. LD: Did you always know you wanted to be a lawyer? JB: No, I didn’t. Growing up, I wanted to be a doctor. My Dad was a physician, and my mom was a nurse. I made it all the way to pre-med at University of Washington. I think it was my senior year when I ﬁnally said, “Why do I want to be a doctor, aside from the fact that my dad was one and my mother was a nurse?” I couldn’t come up with a good answer, so I decided that I wouldn’t go to medical school. LD: That must have taken courage after you had come so far. Did you have another career path in mind? JB: Nothing deﬁnitive. I remember thinking, “Well, what should I do?” I took the LSAT, and I scored well, so I decided to go to law school. Really, I think my concept was, “Well, maybe I’ll get a master’s degree in business and I’ll do some kind of work where I could use my law degree and a business degree.” I really didn’t know what I wanted to do. I didn’t even know what a trial lawyer was.

LD: So you read everything in the library.

But I enjoyed law school, and I did well. I applied in my second year to maybe 150 law ﬁrms in the area. Everybody in the phone book, you know, and I got some interviews. Two, as it happens, were with some of the best personal-injury ﬁrms in the state and maybe the country.

JB: Basically. All the historical novels and the Westerns, I plugged through everything. I suppose that I just drew on years of reading to try to ﬁgure out how to write. Dialogue was the hardest, of course. Writing dialogue is extremely difﬁcult.

One of them was Walkup, Downing & Sterns, with Bruce Walkup and Gerald Sterns. I went to work there as a law clerk, became a lawyer there and, eventually, a partner. Then, Jerry Sterns and I left and started our own ﬁrm. Two years later, I split with Jerry.

LD: But your skills as a storyteller, as a trial lawyer – telling a narrative and being compelling and persuasive – had to give you a little comfort.

LD: Fascinating. I know you’ve had many, many record-setting medical malpractice and personal injury cases. Do you have some recollections of the ones where you started to learn your craft?

JB: That’s true. Because if you can’t tell a good story, if you don’t get the jury involved, not only in the opening statement and the argument, but also in the way you present the case, you’re not going to have a chance. You have to be a good storyteller. You have to draw them in and you have to get them interested and you have to have some suspense. Those are all the elements of a good novel. 148

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

JB: Deﬁnitely. In those days, we tried lots of smaller cases. That’s where we got experience. I was handling over a hundred cases as a law clerk. I would walk down the hall and I would ﬁnd a lawyer to go try a case for me, or go take a deposition, because I wasn’t a member of the bar yet. I was turning over cases. We all were, you know?

500

LD: That’s such an important lesson for new lawyers, and for law students. How you guys who are the masters at this learned. JB: It was a combination of being thrown in the deep end, which we were, but also having some of the finest trial lawyers in the world to watch and to see what they did. I could go and watch Bruce Walkup try a case, and I could go watch Jerry Sterns try a case. Those are remarkable advantages that most people don’t have. Because I knew when it was happening, and I could always find a reason to go. Then I got to try my own little cases, and eventually, bigger cases. I gravitated toward medical malpractice because I loved medicine. I can speak the language. It was just a natural for me, although I did lots of slip-and-falls, rear-enders, motorcycle accidents. I did them all, but more and more, I started doing malpractice cases. LD: Which is where it all started. JB: I can’t say that I really knew what I was doing, but I learned as I went. LD: That’s the great secret, right? Nobody really does. You just take all your training and your values and you go in there and do your best. You’re going to lose some, and you hope to win more, right? JB: And you learn more from your losses. I’ve always known that. You learn what you did wrong in case selection and choices you made preparing and strategizing the case. That’s where you get that. I was really lucky to be surrounded by fabulous lawyers. That was invaluable. Bruce Walkup was one of the greatest trial lawyers probably that this country has ever seen. Unsung by the public, but any good trial lawyer knows who Bruce Walkup was. I think he had the first million-dollar verdict. He had a $4M verdict in a malpractice case back in the early ‘70s. To me, he always had this amazing judgment, especially in his investments, his cases. When we split off of the firm, normally there would have been a fight. In those days, everybody would back a truck up in the middle of the night and steal all the files. There’d be litigation for five years. That wouldn’t happen with a guy like Bruce. He just was so smart. He said, “You take every damn case you have in the office and you pay the cost on them from this point forward. When you settle them, pay us our costs back and get us 50 percent.” We said, “OK.” That was so smart, because it gave us something to start with. It gave him people working their butts off to send him a bunch of money. He was just a smart man.

LD: That was a really constructive approach. JB: He said, “There’s only one exception. There’s one case that you’re working on, Jim, and really it was with me, but you’re working on it. I want that one, because it’s like the one that I got the $4M verdict on, and it came in because of that case. It’s another quadriplegic kid, and I want to keep that case.” I said, “My God, Bruce, the best thing that could ever happen to that little girl is if you kept her case. I’m totally onboard with that. I’ll explain that to her.” He said, “OK, great.” That was the only exception to all of the cases the three of us had. He kept it, and we went off and did our thing. And then he called me about, oh, six months to a year later and he said, “Jim, you know that deal we made?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Would you take that case on the same basis that we agreed on everything else?” I said, “Sure, of course I would. But why?” He said, “Because she calls me every week, and her mother’s died of multiple sclerosis and her father abandoned her. She has no family. You’re like her big brother. All she talks about is you.” He said, “Will you take it?” I said, “Of course.” The point of all this is that he was that kind of guy. I took that case. I probably talked to over a hundred radiation oncologists, which was a very new field of specialty in those days, to try to find somebody who would testify for me. Finally found one in England. LD: That’s an amazing story. JB: That was the case that broke Bruce Walkup’s record and got me the highest verdict in the country. It was on Walter Cronkite. It was all over the news. I had newspapers sent to me from all over the world, China, Germany and India. LD: Did Bruce congratulate you, I assume? JB: He did, he did. He was also interested in getting 50 percent of the fee. Who wouldn’t be? LD: You talked about your father being a doctor. Did he get to see what you had done with the medical knowledge you absorbed growing up? JB: At first, he hated what I did, hated the concept of it. He was a great doctor himself; the only malpractice suit he ever had, I settled after he died for $750 and paid it myself. But he was a very bright guy, went to Stanford Medical School and was an obstetrician and gynecologist. We would talk about the cases that I handled, and he would say, “Well, that’s horrible, because that’s not good medicine.” I said, “Exactly. It has to be an ‘Oh-my-God case,’ Dad, or we won’t

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

149

500 take it.” As he kept hearing about them, he was like, “OK, I get what you’re doing. Those are the things we need to improve.” He understood it. LD: That’s a wonderful foundation for your medical malpractice work. Can you tell me about some of the more recent matters you’ve handled? JB: Of course. In one of them, a woman was hit by a truck and had a mild traumatic brain injury. She was a very high-powered executive recruiter at one of the biggest recruiting ﬁrms. Brilliant, brilliant woman. In the courtroom, she was clearly the smartest person in the room. When she was on the stand, she never missed a question. Never missed a trick. She was smarter than our Harvard-educated judge. The jurors had to understand, though, that she had a brain injury. That was a fascinating process of showing them that although she looked good, talked well, was smart as hell, she still had executive-function disabilities that were devastating to her. She was in her 50s and could not do more than one thing at a time. The defense offered $6M to settle the case, and we turned it down, which was rather unnerving at the time. But we ultimately obtained $20M. The jury understood that you could have all of her capabilities but still have to turn the radio off when you drove or you’d run a stop sign; that you couldn’t talk to anybody while cooking dinner or you’d burn it. That meant she couldn’t work. LD: Right. You had to somehow capture that yes, she is this brilliant woman, but, and in a respectful way to her, she will have this hurdle for the rest of her life. JB: Exactly. Another interesting one recently involved a baby who had surgery virtually right after birth, for something relatively innocuous: a little cyst on her ovary. Unfortunately, they got air into a blood vessel and she had a cardiac arrest and suffered severe brain damage. LD: That’s horrible. JB: It was a laparoscopic surgery. They inﬂate the stomach of the patient, adult or child, to make enough room to operate. The trouble was that when they started blowing it up, the needle wasn’t in the open perineal space. It was in a vessel. It went straight into the heart and into the brain and killed the child’s brain. It was an interesting case, because in the medical profession, that was a known complication. They said, “We’re not going to pay any money.” You run into that in medical malpractice sometimes, where certain people say, “Well, that happens. That’s an 150

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

inherent risk.” Well, then you can’t win the case or you can’t even get an expert. I kept beating my head against this brick wall. I kept saying, “It’s a known risk when you’re driving a car that you might blow the stop sign.” That does not mean that it’s OK to blow the stop sign. If you do blow the stop sign, you’re negligent in how you operated your vehicle. But it’s a known risk. The question is not whether it’s a known and inherent risk. The question is whether it’s an acceptable risk. LD: That’s a smart way to reframe the issue. JB: We ﬁnally found an expert to say, “It shouldn’t happen if you do the procedure correctly,” and I got the largest settlement in state history on that case. LD: Even though most lawyers wouldn’t have taken the case. JB: I almost dropped it. I almost dropped it. Because I was having trouble with that concept, but I just couldn’t accept that. LD: Right. You knew it just couldn’t be that there was nothing for this child who had no say in what happened, right? JB: Right. This poor family was just having a terrible time. And that’s the kind of thing that you can run into in the malpractice business, where they say, “Well, that’s just something that happened.” That’s not really the question. The question is whether it should happen and whether, if you follow the right procedures, you should be able to prevent it from happening. LD: When you’re overcoming those kinds of obstacles just to get a trial, the victories become that much sweeter. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are making such a difference for people who are so badly injured, and really putting yourselves on the line to do it. That’s rare. JB: That’s sometimes our biggest problem: We can make foolish judgments and take cases that we shouldn’t because we get too involved with the client and we lose our objectivity. LD: Right, you’re thinking with your heart. JB: Yes. That balance between business and objectivity and your heart and your passion and your need to do good, because most, not all, but most of the folks who do what we do, we’re crusaders inside and that’s what drives us. We’re not all ambulance chasers. They’re out there, of course. There are bad doctors and bad lawyers. But most of the doctors are really great people trying to do good, and most of the lawyers are the same.

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Thomas Brandi

The Brandi Law Firm

Litigators

Frank Branson

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson

Litigators

Joseph Brown Jr.

Cunningham Bounds

Litigators

Elizabeth Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser

Leadership

David Casey Jr.

Casey Gerry

Litigators

Douglas Cawley

McKool Smith

Litigators

Cynthia Chihak

Chihak & Martel

Litigators

James Clark

Cahill

Dealmakers

Lew Clayton

Paul Weiss

Litigators

Howard Coker

Coker Law

Litigators

Jan Conlin

Ciresi Conlin

Litigators

Silvia Coulter

LawVision

Consultants

Christopher Cox

Cadwalader

Dealmakers

Lanny Davis

Trident DMG

Consultants

Mark Davis

Davis Levin

Litigators

John DeGroote

DeGroote Partners

Litigators

Jorge del Calvo

Pillsbury

Dealmakers

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

151

500

FRANK BRANSON

THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK L. BRANSON FRANK BRANSON LEARNED HIS CRAFT

watching the greats of Texas courtrooms, lawyers whose achievements and exploits stood out even in a state known for its larger-than-life swagger.

One was John Wilson, Branson’s mentor, who tried only workers’ compensation cases but handled them so well that he was an undisputed master of his specialty. Another was Richard “Racehorse” Haynes, who never shed the nickname conferred by a childhood football coach and was labeled as one of the nation’s best lawyers by Time magazine. And of course, Warren Burnett, known for riding motorcycles, shredding airtight criminal cases and, generally, afﬂicting the comfortable. A former prosecutor who sent one suspect to the electric chair, Burnett subsequently left for the defense bar and won acquittal for an 18-year-old athlete in the “Kiss and Kill” murder case that made headlines in the 1960s. “It’s hard now to get young lawyers into the courtroom,” muses Branson, who made it a point, especially at

152

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

the beginning of his career, to observe the best of the best in that arena and ﬁgure out which of their tactics he might adopt. “Warren was fascinating to listen to and told great stories,” he recalls. “And Joe Jamail, who was a character in his own right, had the ability to be likeable and prepared, yet knew how to punch holes in cases and the weaknesses of his opponents.” Branson still remembers “stopping work one day and going down to watch Percy Foreman, who was a great defense lawyer, defend a client here in a Dallas courtroom.” Branson says that some of the other lawyers who inﬂuenced his career were Buddy Low of Beaumont; Ronnie Krist of Clearlake, who represented family members of three of the Challenger astronauts; and Franklin Jones, Sr. and Franklin Jones, Jr., who were partners of renowned trial lawyer Scott Baldwin. “After I had been trying cases for a decade, more of them became good friends,” Branson says.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

Add one more name to that firmament: that of Branson himself. A gentleman who defines courtesy, he has etched his name in the stars as one of the nation’s very best trial lawyers. He speaks softly, but beware the bear inside who is always more prepared than anyone else in the courtroom. He has run his own practice alongside colleagues including his wife, Debbie Dudley Branson, for four decades, notching victories that include a $242M product liability trial verdict, which was reduced to a $200M judgment affirmed by the Dallas Court of Appeals and was settled while pending at the Texas Supreme Court to the satisfaction of all parties; $7M for a college soccer player whose leg injury in an SUV rollover ended his sports career; and a remarkable $21M to an 83-year-old widow, whose husband was killed by a cocaine-addled trucker. His experiences along the way – and the lessons of his mentors – offer a virtual primer on what attorneys in earlier stages of their careers need to do to succeed: Prepare meticulously, master the courtroom environment, call witnesses in an order that makes it easy for the jury to follow the case narrative and remain authentic. The importance of preparation, in particular, was drilled into Branson by his football coach father. The beginning of trial, he says, is a bit like the opening kickoff. “Once you’ve got the ball in your hand, everything seems to take care of itself, and the same thing is true in a courtroom,” he says. “But more than the ball being in play, you have to have spent enough time in courtrooms both doing things the wrong way and seeing things done the right way to understand that nobody’s going to bite your head off and that you need to do the best you can. And the more courtrooms you’ve been in, the easier it is to do.” Lawdragon: The amount of care and thought that goes into what great lawyers do, I think, can be underestimated and it shouldn’t be because that’s really one of the big differentiators between you and people who might aspire to be like you. Frank Branson: Succeeding at trial definitely involves lots of preparation. And you’re right, there are things that occur that hopefully don’t look like you spend a lot of time on them because they go very smoothly. Lots of times, they’re not complicated things. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of preparing your batting order of witnesses so that you present what happened to your client in an order that’s easily digestible by the

jury. Some of that, you have to learn by trial and error or watching other lawyers. The jury can understand the bad things that a defendant has done, but they need to hear the story in order, I think. LD: I know you’ve always worked very, very hard, even after your law degree, going back and getting another degree so you could improve your understanding of injuries. Could you talk a little more about the attention to detail, the care and, really, the devotion to the craft of being a lawyer that’s required to consistently deliver the best results for clients? Because there really are no shortcuts. FB: No, there aren’t. Some of the habits that have helped me, I learned growing up. When I didn’t do something right, my father had a tendency to make me do it over until I did do it right. My mentor, John Wilson, was a strong lawyer and with him, I had the chance to watch how it was done right. The cases he tried were always against the workers’ comp insurance company, and they’d always done things like deny medical claims and not treat the injured party properly. And so John would try the insurance company. And if the insurance lawyer got in the way, he’d try the insurance lawyer. And then sometimes the judge would take sides, and he’d try the judge along with all them. I found out that when I tried cases, I wasn’t John Wilson and had to be myself before the jury. And that took some trials for me to realize that copying what he did wasn’t the way to do it. I realized eventually that once you’ve been there enough and ﬁnally understand the process that the jury needs to see that, and you need to be the same person throughout the trial. That last bit is really important. I saw a defense lawyer once make a move that I thought cost him the case. We’d been in trial for several days, and he’d been close to being a sycophant with the judge and jury, Mr. Goody Two Shoes. Then, during a lunch break, he discovered his paralegal hadn’t done something right, and he really gave her a hard time, unmercifully. And the jury wasn’t locked up, because it was lunch, and unbeknownst to him, there were two jurors standing in the back of the courtroom. And they didn’t respond as well to him for the rest of the trial. People expect you to be courteous, pleasant. As the trial goes on, if the conduct of the other party or the other witness is really bad, I think the jury understands it if you get a little tougher with them, because the jury’s getting angry at them also. But you can’t start

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

153

500 out that way because they haven’t seen the conduct you’ve seen. LD: Juries need to believe in you to believe in your client. FB: That’s right. LD: If you’re presenting one face when they’re sitting in the jury box and then being unkind to somebody when you think nobody’s looking, it reflects on the client. There’s no way around it. FB: It does. More than that, it reflects on the credibility of the lawyer and the client in the case. When you look at what good lawyers do that perhaps the average lawyer doesn’t do, it really comes down in many instances to persuasion. To persuade, you’ve first got to be likable, credible and prepared. LD: I like that: likable, credible and prepared. It brings together so much about you: your own background, your father being a coach and, I think, one of your brothers being a coach also? FB: Yes, he rose to the level of a college coach. He now works for us in investigation and does a good job. My brother’s a really nice guy and he can talk to a rock – he’s a very affable man and a good guy. So when we’re investigating a case, people will talk to him who wouldn’t talk to a lot of former police officers. LD: You know, you embody some of those same traits yourself, and I do think that that’s a real differentiator in the courtroom. FB: I’ve had cases as a young lawyer where a lawyer on the other side would just irritate the dickens out of me in discovery. But if you begin trying the case in that manner, it turns off a lot of jurors, justifiably, because they don’t understand why you’re angry, and by the time you get around to showing it, they’ve already made their minds up. Most jurors, I think, enter the jury box with an open mind about what’s going on. They see the lawyers on both sides, see the witnesses, the quality of the experts, the quality of the plaintiffs and defendants and they begin to form their opinions about the people and the conduct that caused the people to be there and the law firms they have. All of that has to play out in a logical sequence, I think. It’s like going to the movies. The movie has to tell you a story and if they put the ending at the beginning, it’s pretty hard to follow. LD: Tell me more about some of the lawyers who’ve been mentors or role models in the courtroom. 154

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

FB: There are a lot of great lawyers that I’ve enjoyed watching and learning from, people like Scott Baldwin from Marshall, Texas, who was a president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Warren Burnett – who was a great storyteller – he was from MidlandOdessa and was truly an outstanding trial lawyer. In fact, one time, back in the late ‘50s, the doctors and lawyers of the Midland–Odessa area got to fussing as those two professions are prone to do sometimes, so they decided to have a bury-the-hatchet party. They made two mistakes: They invited Warren to speak on behalf of the Bar Association and they had the party at the Midland–Odessa Country Club. Warren’s speech – after a few cocktails – was, “As I watched the doctors and their ladies arrive in their chauffeurdriven limousines with looks upon their faces as though their heads contain knowledge unknown to mere mortal man, I was reminded that over 100 years ago, when our forefathers were drafting such immortal documents as the Constitution and Bill of Rights for these United States, their forefathers were placing big leeches on George Washington’s ass.” And it is rumored that shortly thereafter, one of the young doctors arose from Warren’s table and a fistfight broke out. LD: And as you were coming up as a trial lawyer, you had the opportunity to see some of these Texas legends in action and learn. FB: I did. And I made it a point to. Racehorse Haynes, in fact, became a friend of mine. He was a real character. I asked him one time where he got the nickname and he said, “In junior high school, I was making a long run on the football field and my coach said, ‘Look at that race horse run,’ and it stuck.” LD: You’ve talked before about the sheer number of cases you worked on, which is something so many great lawyers say helped them develop their craft. If you take on a bunch of insurance defense or workers’ compensation cases – any area that involves large quantities – they all involve people, right? And so you learn about the interaction of people and the law. FB: When I was a young lawyer, I worked for a year in Grand Prairie, then was made an offer by one of the largest Dallas plaintiffs firms, which had a large volume of small cases. So after carrying John Wilson’s briefcase for a few years, I got an opportunity to put what I’d seen into practice and we’d try a lot of lawsuits, but they were small lawsuits, $3,000 to $5,000 to $10,000. But I got to see all kinds of conduct, good and bad, in a courtroom from witnesses,

500

lawyers, and judges and grew experienced enough to spot trouble and duck instinctively when I needed to. My ﬁrst year of law practice, I was sent to get a document signed at a probate court in Fort Worth. And I was handing the judge the document, and he spit tobacco on my brand new poplin suit. And it just ran, ran down the fabric. And I looked at him and he said, “You learned a good lesson here today, son: Never get in between a man and his spittoon.” And I haven’t since. And then we tried a case one time, and there was a juror who may not have actually been with the process. And so he, somewhat early in the case, liked our side and every time we’d make a point, he would cheer and clap. So we had to have a conference with the judge, and we asked that he be excused. Sometimes that’s not the best for your side of the case. LD: But that’s what they don’t teach you in law school. Right? The law only matters when it’s applied with people, and people are different. FB: No kidding. And courtrooms don’t get the credit they deserve for the work and the justice that comes out of them. It’s hard to fully appreciate that until you’ve been in them and see things go right and wrong, both. There are all kinds of entertaining and educational things that happen in court. And the longer you’re around them, the more you realize they’re going to occur in virtually any trial. I had some doctor friends who worked at a hospital, for instance, some 40 years ago and the hospital had a rule that required podiatrists to have a physician stand in during any foot surgery. The hospital’s reason for doing that was that the procedures often relied on nurse anesthetists and without a physician, there would be nobody licensed to do a tracheostomy if there were a problem. Well, the podiatrists took offense and sued them and my surgeon friends convinced me to represent the hospital. In the middle of the trial, with the chief of staff on the witness stand, one of the jurors – who had a pacemaker – had a heart attack. The chief of staff was summoned to the judge’s chambers to examine her, and he said, “Look, she needs to get to a surgeon, somebody who is a cardiac surgeon, who treated her in the past. My getting involved is not going to help her. It might hurt her.” The lady, unfortunately, died. The jury then returned a large verdict against my client because one of the jurors somehow overheard that conversation and told the others that she died

because my hospital’s chief of staff wouldn’t provide care. When the appellate court looked at the case, it said something like, “The first 41 motions for mistrial Mr. Branson made were good and should have been granted.” So they granted a new trial. But the juries, a very, very high percent of the time, do the right thing. And when they don’t, there’s usually a reason that comes up during trial that one of those lawyers didn’t know about. LD: It’s a marvelous system. It really is. And we’re lucky to be a part of it. FB: We really are. The competitive aspect of litigation and jury trials, I think, is one of the forces that drives me. I really enjoyed athletics as a young man. And carrying a football across a goal, or having a jury find for my client, have always been things that were very exciting to me and gratifying. LD: That’s the good stuff, isn’t it? That’s why you do what you do. FB: The bad stuff, of course, is that I really hate to lose. It always takes me a while to dissect the case – to try to see why we lost, how we lost and how I can fix it the next time. We’ve been very fortunate, overall, and we have a great team. Four of our lawyers have gone on and become presidents of Texas Trial Lawyers; Debbie [Dudley Branson] is one of them. Some of them, I think, are in the International Academy, which is a really great honor. All of our trials are really a team effort, with Debbie and me and one or two of the other lawyers, and it’s been very enjoyable. And it’s great to see these lawyers develop. Some of them have had their own firms, and some have come out of defense firms, and one or two out of the prosecutor’s office. Obviously we’re looking for bright young lawyers, but I really want them to want to win and accept our work ethic. LD: Of course. You don’t want a lawyer who’s like, “Well, I did my best.” Right? FB: Right. LD: Obviously, at the end of the day, the lawyer has to learn to live with losses, but you want a lawyer who says, “I’m the quarterback. I’m taking this. I’m putting it on my shoulders. And I’m going to get in the end zone for you.” FB: Exactly. One whose attitude is, “I want to win at all costs within the rules.” And the entire team has to work toward that.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

155

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Thomas Demetrio

Corboy & Demetrio

Litigators

Carl Douglas

Douglas Hicks

Litigators

Lewis 'Mike' Eidson

Colson Hicks

Litigators

Jay Eisenhofer

Grant & Eisenhofer

Litigators

Alan Epstein

Spector Gadon

Litigators

Alan Exelrod

Rudy Exelrod

Litigators

Elizabeth Faiella

Faiella & Gulden

Litigators

Robert Fleder

Paul Weiss

Litigators

Valerie Fontaine

Seltzer Fontaine

Consultants

David Fox

Kirkland

Dealmakers

Jan Woodward Fox

Litigators

Stephen Fraidin

Cadwalader

Dealmakers

Hal Gillespie

Gillespie & Sanford

Litigators

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

U.S. Supreme Court

Remembered

Amy Gladstein

Gladstein Reif

Litigators

Nathan Goldberg

Allred Maroko

Litigators

Stuart Grossman

Grossman Roth

Litigators

156

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Paul Hanly Jr.

Simmons Hanly Conroy

Remembered

William Hartnett

Cahill Gordon

Dealmakers

Terry Hatter

U.S. District Court

Judges

Michael Hausfeld

Hausfeld

Litigators

Edward Herlihy

Wachtell

Leadership

Frank Herrera Jr.

The Herrera Law Firm

Litigators

Nancy Hersh

Hersh & Hersh

Litigators

Anita Hill

Cohen Milstein

Litigators

Nora Jordan

Davis Polk

Dealmakers

Karen Kaplowitz

New Ellis Group

Consultants

Steven Kazan

Kazan McClain

Litigators

Don Keenan

Keenan Law Firm

Litigators

Skip Keesal

Keesal Young

Litigators

Michael Kelly

Walkup Melodia

Litigators

Thomas Kline

Kline Specter

Litigators

Alan Kornberg

Paul Weiss

Litigators

Alexandra Korry

Sullivan & Cromwell

Remembered

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

157

500

MICHAEL CIRESI

CIRESI CONLIN LLP

WHEN IT COMES TO SEEKING JUSTICE, renowned litigator Michael Ciresi constantly pushes past expectations. He did so just six years ago when, after more than 40 years at highly regarded Minneapolis firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, he left to build a small firm where he could focus more purely on his clients’ cases. Ciresi Conlin LLP is devoted to a diverse litigation practice representing both plaintiffs and defendants in large, high-stakes trials.

In his illustrious career representing clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to major nonproﬁts and even the Government of India, Ciresi has built a reputation for passionately advocating for his clients in trial – and winning. Ciresi showed long ago that he was unintimidated by massive cases: In 1998, he represented the state of Minnesota in a tobacco litigation that garnered a $7B settlement. Nearly $12B in verdicts, awards and settlements later, Ciresi’s track record has continued to build. With millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of service invested in charitable organizations, Ciresi

158

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

also demonstrates what it means to fight for justice outside of the courtroom. Lawdragon: I’d love to talk about the founding of your firm. Why did you decide to branch out and start your own firm after your long career at Robins Kaplan? Michael Ciresi: You mean, why would a named partner who had spent 44 years in one place get up all of a sudden, at his ripe old age of 68, and go off somewhere else? LD: Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. MC: Well, I realized I really wanted to spend all my time on the practice of law rather than being involved in the non-practice aspect of a larger firm. I stepped down as chair, but my name was still on the door. I was constantly involved in issues related to the operation of the firm itself. So, I wanted to get out and get back to the true, unvarnished practice of law. I wanted to work with other law firms more than we had in the past, because with

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

a smaller firm we wouldn’t have the same conflicts. And I saw the law changing, particularly with respect to transitioning to the digital age. When I started, and all the way through up to around the year 2000, firms grew, particularly in litigation. They grew because you needed a lot of lawyers reviewing documents, et cetera, working on the discovery aspect of law. Today, with artificial intelligence, those firms have been hollowed out because those jobs are not as necessary as they were in the past. Now, you can go through millions of documents in short order. It used to be that lawyers were spending a lot of time going through them laboriously, document by document. We went through 33 million documents in the tobacco litigation at our old firm. Today, we could have gone through those documents in hours with an algorithm as to what we were looking for. So, the practice itself is changing dramatically. In response, our firm focuses on the lawyers who are true trial lawyers, which is what I’ve always done. LD: So interesting. So, now, with this new firm, are you having to handle any operational aspects? MC: No, ma’am. Katie Crosby Lehmann is our managing partner, so she, unfortunately, is burdened with the operational tasks, along with being a trial lawyer. LD: Right. So, tell me what kind of cases you’ve been working on since you moved over. MC: Well, it runs the gambit, obviously. On the pro bono side, we had White Bear Lake Restoration Association v. the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. That dealt with a very famous lake here in Minnesota, White Bear Lake, which is just north of the Twin Cities. Essentially, they’re draining the water out of the lake. They’re granting permits to all the municipalities without an overall assessment of what impact that is having on the aquifers, so the lake went down dramatically. We took them to trial, and our verdict was affirmed. Another case is State of Alaska v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. Two of my partners were trial counsel against the former operator of a refinery concerning statutory and contractual liability related to groundwater contamination, in, of all places, the city of North Pole, Alaska. There was a multi-week trial up there and we got a judgment in favor of the client. The judgment found the former operator responsible to pay for over $80M in past damages and future liability for PFAS costs related to contamination at the North Pole refinery site. That

was a big case. That’s on appeal right now to the Alaska Supreme Court. LD: Wow. MC: And then, our medical malpractice team is phenomenal. It’s the best in the state. We’ve had a number of very large, multi-million-dollar settlements and verdicts since we’ve been here. Kathleen Flynn Peterson and Brandon Thompson head that up, and they are just extraordinary malpractice lawyers. We also do a lot of corporate litigation. So, it’s a very varied practice, but 100 percent litigation. LD: Okay, great. And, in all those varied litigations, what would you say your style is as a trial lawyer? MC: Preparation, preparation, preparation. I believe that you have to be the most prepared in the courtroom, and that enables you to cross-examine effectively. If I had to say what’s led to our success, it’s preparation with a strategic approach angled toward looking at documents and seeing things that other people don’t see. If you use your creativity and imagination, you’re able to piece documents together to reconstruct what actually took place. Keep in mind that, when showing evidence, trial lawyers are constantly recreating history. You’re putting on a production of events that took place sometime in the past, and you have to have a sense as to why those events took place. I think that’s the key to trial work. LD: You’ve linked trials and ﬁlm production a couple of times. Are you using more media in the courtroom these days? MC: Absolutely. We were the ﬁrst ones in the nation to bring computers into the courtroom during litigation for multimedia presentations of evidence, going back to the Minolta Camera litigation in 1991-92. The use of media is extremely important – particularly today, as you have changing demographics in younger jurors. A lot of them, that’s what they grew up with. And, the more senses you can appeal to in a case, the better off you are. In other words, if you can see something, hear something, smell something or touch something, it makes more of an impact on you. And, keep in mind, throughout the course of a trial, people have varying attention spans. LD: Right. MC: You have to make sure that you’re keeping each one of those jurors attentive for the longest possible time during your presentation. The way to

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

159

500 do that is to appeal to a variety of senses, in a variety of different ways. And so, the trial of a case is, in fact, a production. It’s a lot like a movie when you think about it. You’ve got a director, you’ve got a producer, you’ve got the actors, you’re creating an environment. All of that is essential. LD: I really like that description. Now, you say crossexamination is a particular strength area for you. Do you feel like you picked up those skills from anyone in particular? MC: Well, I think you might have to have an innate ability to do things like that. You need to see things that other people don’t see. Maybe it’s a product of my upbringing; I don’t know. I have a very fertile imagination. I look at something and I start looking at it from all sides, even the ones that aren’t immediately apparent. That’s very important in cross-examination. There have been many cases where I’ve said to somebody in cross-examination, “And then, in fact, you did this. Didn’t you, sir?” And they look at you like, “How did he know that?” There’s no document on it. He hadn’t testiﬁed to it before. But it just made sense when you look at all the other factors surrounding the event. And then you’re off and rolling because you’ve got them on the string after that. And, if they say, “No,” because of the way you’ve set it up, they’re going to look like they’re lying. So, that’s part of the strategy. I love cross-examination. LD: I can tell. That’s so exciting. You said, “Maybe it has to do with my upbringing.” If I can ask, where did you grow up? MC: Born, bred and educated in St. Paul, Minnesota. My dad’s parents came from Sicily, but he was born here. He only had a seventh-grade education – he worked from then on, selling fruits and vegetables. He went to a small fruit stand, and then a grocery store, and then a smaller liquor store. I worked with him in the store from the time I was six years old. My mother died of breast cancer when I was 12, so we were required to get out to the store and help with the work. As a result, I was exposed to all kinds of people. I think that’s the background that I’m talking about with my upbringing. It was so enriching to see such a diverse group of people, and I learned a lot about them at a young age. I think that has a lot to do with who I am today. 160

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Wow, absolutely. And then, finally, I’d love to hear a little bit about your very active community involvement. MC: Right. Our philanthropic work is primarily in education and with the children’s hospital, where I’ve been on the board since about 2009. We started a charitable foundation after the tobacco case at the old firm. We funded it over three years with $30M from the proceeds of that case. It was always independent of the firm, so when I left the firm, the foundation came with me. Roberta Walburn was the co-creator of the tobacco litigation with me at that firm – she’s another unbelievable lawyer and a very dear friend. We changed the name of the foundation to the Ciresi Walburn Foundation a few years ago. That foundation has given out about $26M in grants since its inception. Most of those grants have been in the education field, because we have a tremendous disparity in quality of education between children of color and white kids in Minnesota, which is tragic because we have a very good school system otherwise. LD: So, the organization particularly focuses on aiding disadvantaged children? MC: It’s dedicated to where the disparities are. So, we’re really looking at creating systemic change to make sure that there’s more, for example, teachers of color in classrooms so that the programs are more culturally attuned to the kids and educated in where the kids are coming from, so they can meet them on their territory. We distribute about $2M in grants per year at the present time. LD: Oh, that’s excellent. MC: Education is the key. You have to educate all of our children. That elevates everybody. And we like to say that all children are our children. LD: That’s wonderful. Where does your love of education come from? MC: The value of education was pounded into me by my dad. Just a guy who had a seventh-grade education, but he never saw a bond issue he didn’t love. He supported education across the board because he had such a fervent belief in its power to elevate people. That’s what he wanted for his kids, and he instilled in us that’s what we should want for all of our children. LD: Oh, that’s beautiful. And it sounds like it’s gotten you far.

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Michael Kump

Kinsella Weitzman

Litigators

Stephen Lamb

Paul Weiss

Leadership

Barbara Lawless

Lawless & Lawless

Litigators

Richard Lawrence

The Lawrence Firm

Litigators

Ann Lee Gibson

Ann Lee Gibson Consulting

Consultants

Jon Lindsey

Major Lindsey & Africa

Consultants

Michael Livingston

Davis Levin

Litigators

Randi McGinn

Athea/McGinn Montoya

Litigators

Ellen Messing

Messing Rudavsky

Litigators

Michael Meyer

Glaser Weil

Dealmakers

Bruce Miller

Miller Cohen

Litigators

Dale Minami

Minami Tamaki

Litigators

Mark Moller

Kreindler & Kreindler

Litigators

Henry Nassau

Dechert

Dealmakers

Harold Nix

Nix Patterson

Litigators

John Norman

Norman & Edem

Litigators

Cliff Palefsky

McGuinn Hillsman

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

161

500

TY COBB

TY COBB PLLC

WASHINGTON, D.C., A REFINED ITALIAN restaurant downtown. Spring 2017.

In the past, wine was poured to celebrate the chance to reconnect. But as he bustles in, it becomes clear that won’t be the case today. Turns out, this gregarious Insider Everyman needs to dash in an hour for a ﬂight to New York. The new president’s private lawyer has encountered choppy waters and would like to talk to Mr. Cobb – who is about to head down the rabbit hole of what already looks like an interesting adventure in the presidency of Donald Trump. What is not particularly surprising is that our White Rabbit would reach out to Cobb – a storied D.C. lawyer who made his name as a federal prosecutor in Maryland, then went on to serve as a top whitecollar litigator specializing in, among other subjects, foreign bribery and corruption investigations while a partner for 29 years at Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells).

162

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

What’s curiouser and curiouser, however, is that the dedicated public servant is a middle-of-the-road Kansan, who has represented many elected and appointed Democrats and is passionate about the environment and civil liberties. He dashes off with promises to tell us what he decides when he can. Within weeks, he conﬁdes the news reports are true. Cobb has agreed to join the Trump administration, but not to represent Trump. Instead, his role is to represent the Presidency as an institution and his goal is to uphold the democracy he holds dear against a very clear threat from inside and out. Cobb served from July 2017 to June 2018 reporting directly to the President. He counseled Trump to permit the White House to cooperate in the Mueller investigation into Russian election interference, then led the effort that proved the Russian collusion story was a baseless politically contrived fraud. “How could you abide helping Trump?” we ask, the tone of our question in October 2021 exposing

PHOTO BY ELI MEIER KAPLAN

500 WHILE IN LAW SCHOOL, COBB BECAME INTERESTED IN BECOMING A PUBLIC DEFENDER. AS A RESULT, POST-GRADUATION, HE CLERKED FOR A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, WHO ALSO SERVED ON THE FISA COURT. AS COBB NOTES, “THINGS GOT VERY REAL VERY QUICKLY.” AS HE ACQUIRED A NEWFOUND SENSE OF HOW COMPLEX THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COULD BE AND HOW FRAGILE THE WORLD ORDER WAS, HIS DETERMINATION TO SERVE GREW. some distaste. But to be fair, it’s a dialogue we’ve had with Cobb throughout his time in Trumpland, visiting him at the White House, over breakfast at the Hay-Adams and in Charleston, S.C., after he left the administration and was deciding to open his own practice. His response: He didn’t take the role to help any single individual, nor to make any friends. “Originally, I turned down the request to represent Trump personally. When asked a couple weeks later to represent the White House and the institution of the Presidency, I ultimately agreed after negotiating certain conditions. I then left my partnership of almost 30 years to become a government lawyer once again, because either the President had done something very wrong or had been falsely accused for political purposes that divided the country and weakened us around the world – either of which was a threat to the future of democracy and the United States.” He wasn’t shocked, he says, by the “vitriol of the mainstream media or the countless false stories.” And while he expected personal attacks, it turned out few ensued. In fact, as others have observed, Ty Cobb was among the very, very limited number of whom served without tarnishing his reputation. “Someone had to take on the challenge without concern for anything but ﬁnding the truth and building a White House response that would not hinder future Presidents,” Cobb says. “It was best if that person wasn’t a political hack but was instead experienced in precisely the type of investigative, legal and analytical work required. But, yes, it affected me and cost me perceived friends and stressed important personal relationships.” In Cobb’s view, people need to do a better job at seeing past their passions and realizing that both

political parties need good public servants. “Failure for any President is failure for the country, and who roots for that?” Cobb says. “It was never about ideology for me – it was about the job.” Cobb says that Mueller’s reported findings in March 2019 acknowledged what he and the former FBI director knew shortly after 95 percent or more of witness interviews had been completed in January 2018: “There was no evidence of Russian collusion – the Steele dossier was phony, the related Alpha Bank story was also a hoax and each had been bought, paid for and marketed by a campaign, a national party and political operatives for political purposes recklessly putting the country and its institutions in peril. “Seven Days in May,” the terrifying military coup best seller and movie of the mid-60s, was nothing compared to the threat on our country posed by the perpetrators of these false narratives. Criticize Trump as you should for many things he actually said or did (like the “Big Lie” and January 6) but be real and even handed in assessing the reality of what happened in the fabricated, politically financed, and press hyped – yet totally false – Russian hysteria which so divided the country it hasn’t recovered and emboldened those abroad who would do us military and economic harm. It could happen again without deterrence and vigilance.” The consequences of that divisiveness have been disastrous. “It still has a strong hold on the nation and has set us on a death spiral of hatred, intolerance and international decline that is accelerating, not abating,” Cobb says. As the son of a former Naval fighter pilot who was raised in rural Western Kansas as the oldest of eight children, Cobb’s values are rooted in the soil where

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

163

500 he grew up and forged through the idealism of his college years. He describes himself as having been, “A long-haired Harvard activist” in the late 1960s and early 1970s, having participated in numerous marches over racial justice, Vietnam, Cambodia and Kent State, among other issues. “We got rid of Nixon and ended the Vietnam war. There was great optimism on all social fronts. It was a magical time until it wasn’t.” Following college and after many months of bicycling the country, managing a rock band, and failing as an aspiring writer, Cobb – still concerned about the issues of the times – went to work on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Assistant and Press Secretary. Subsequently, his father fell ill. Shortly before his father passed away at 53, Cobb had promised him he would go to law school. And so, of course, he did.

notes that there is also a warrior or Samurai dimension – a tireless work ethic, frequent polishing of skills, respect for your opponent and the honorable fight. When pressed about a perceived conflict between his philosophy and the adversarial process, he quotes, “Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.” His career went on to include a wide-ranging number of star-studded cases and causes. Highly regarded as a federal prosecutor, he became a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers during his first year of eligibility. He spent 29 years at Hogan Lovells, where he entered as a partner and later served on the firm’s elected Executive Committee and in other leadership roles. After leaving the White House, he started his own firm, and currently has the benefit of being highly selective as to clients he represents or to whom he provides strategic advice.

While in law school, Cobb became interested in becoming a public defender. As a result, post-graduation, he clerked for a federal district court judge, who also served on the FISA court. As Cobb notes, “Things got very real very quickly.” As he acquired a newfound sense of how complex the administration of justice could be and how fragile the world order was, his determination to serve grew. The ﬁrst trial he witnessed while clerking resulted in the acquittal of a very dangerous and, to Cobb, blatantly guilty man. That miscarriage of justice led Cobb to believe that perhaps it was the prosecution who needed help. He became a federal prosecutor. He loved the experience of trying cases and the pressure to win. “It was competition, required intense preparation, creativity, strategy, execution, frequent adjustments and stamina,” he explains. “I loved the competitiveness. I loved the challenge of being more prepared than the other side and trying to think around corners so that you could anticipate where the vulnerabilities and opportunities were and be ready when they presented themselves.”

At Hogan, he specialized in high-profile corporate and individual white-collar crime matters, including regulatory crimes, FDA violations and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations, as well as the representation of multiple political figures. He also handled many Congressional and Independent Counsel matters, once serving as Special Trial Counsel for the Independent Counsel inquiry involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Secretary from 1981-1989, Samuel Pierce. In that role, Cobb brought charges of influence peddling against former Department of Interior Secretary, James Watt, a conservative Republican, who later pled guilty.

Once he became a prosecutor, Cobb says he was also driven by the high stakes of his cases: “If you wear the white hat, you must take special care to play fair and you have to win!”

“Individuals were on trial along with the company,” Cobb recalls. “The stakes were high in terms of potential ﬁnancial penalties, regulatory consequences, and, for the individuals, prison time.”

Though his work carries that competitive spirit and intensity, in life Cobb is focused and contemplative. An “imperfect” Buddhist of 50 years, he cares deeply about equality in his personal, spiritual and legal spheres. “Tolerance, honesty and compassion are really the simple guides,” he says of Buddhism, and that philosophy carries over to his work. He

Mid-trial, upon the defense learning it had been deprived of exculpatory information during pretrial discovery, a hearing was required outside the presence of the jury. The judge was a no-nonsense but very kind, fair, collegial, and experienced jurist, Warren Urbom, who had been selected earlier in his career to try the Wounded Knee FBI shooting case.

164

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

He represented Hudson Foods (later Tyson’s) during the then largest e-coli recall in the country. A rural Nebraska meatpacking company, Hudson was forced to sell to Tyson’s in the face of an “overreaching” government prosecution (much like the later Arthur Anderson prosecutorial debacle). When the case ﬁnally tried, it was held in Lincoln, Neb., thanks to Cobb’s successful efforts to change the venue from the government’s preferred jurisdiction of Omaha.

500

The government was forced to call their lead case agent to testify before the judge. Cobb conducted a lengthy cross examination that turned the agent into the defense’s key witness when Cobb called him to the stand at the beginning of the defense case before the jury. The jury was out less than 90 minutes, which included their lunch, after the month-long trial. Everyone was acquitted. One of his early cases with Hogan was for the fledgling environmental group, Grand Canyon Trust, for which he went on to become a Trustee and serve as Chairman of the Board for several years. That passion for nature and conservation now finds him fighting to preserve Kiawah Island, S.C., as a member of the Board of the Kiawah Conservancy. He applies his legal experience to his community, working with the talented staff of the Kiawah Conservancy and his fellow Conservancy trustees (including his wife of 45 years, a lawyer and public health advocate) to protect the local fish, wildlife and ecosystem from threats including rising sea levels, offshore testing for oil and countless other concerns. His other notable work over the years reads like a who’s who and what’s what of a half century of politics. Since the Reagan administration, he has featured in scandals and controversies far and wide, representing a Bush 41 cabinet member, a former Tyson Foods General Counsel in connection with lucrative options trading by Hillary Clinton, several members of the Clinton administration in Department of Justice and Congressional inquiries in ethics cases, and advised on Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster’s suicide, the discovery of the Rose Law Firm billing records and the Gore Campaign Buddhist Temple fundraising, among others. He secured the exoneration of Clinton Cabinet member Eli Segal in an Independent Counsel investigation and represented Jean Kennedy Smith in a DOJ matter involving her service as Ambassador to Ireland. “Independent Counsel investigations, like Congressional investigations, became a subspecialty in the ‘80s and early ‘90s for a handful of white-collar specialists,” Cobb says. “I was fortunate to have worked on the Hill before law school and to have been a federal prosecutor. As a result, active participation in Congressional hearings for major corporations and for individuals were a significant part of my practice for 25 years or so.” Cobb also represented Blue Cross/Blue Shield, The American Red Cross, Medtronic and AIG (after the crash of 2008), along with multiple other financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies and medical

device manufacturers in Congressional inquiries over the years. Cobb credits his success over such varied terrain to his collaborative approach with clients and colleagues, hard work, “strategery,” instinct and humor – particularly of the “self-deprecating” kind. “If you can get a jury or an intended audience or opponent to laugh and realize that you’re a genuine person, not just a stuffed shirt or actor, they can relate to you,” he says. “When that happens, your presentation of the narrative becomes less pedantic and more conversational. Your questions become their questions and your beliefs become accessible. Passion may help, at times, but preparation and persuasion matter.” As does a voice of sanity in a crazy world. Lawdragon: So, after you left the White House, you started your own firm? Why did you decide to do that rather than return to a firm? Ty Cobb: Right, put out my shingle. I already lived down in South Carolina on the ocean on Kiawah Island, and while I was contacted by and spoke with several firms where I had close friends, I just couldn’t pull the trigger. I liked the idea of essentially being a Cal Ripken type, a one-firm guy for 29 years at Hogan. I couldn’t muster the desire to be a free agent to the highest bidder. I was excited to be free to pick and choose my own things rather than returning to the role of a rainmaker within a large bureaucracy. I also liked the idea of being unhampered by conflicts and doing more strategic consulting and crisis management for Boards of Directors and other clients. LD: That makes sense. So now you’re choosing what you work on. TC: Yes. Throughout my career, one of the biggest challenges for me has been learning how to say no. I probably took on more than I should have immediately after leaving the White House. I had a couple of extremely busy years. Now, I’m down to doing what I enjoy most, strategy and advocacy while supervising a handful of other lawyers when necessary. It’s starting to feel like what others describe as a normal life. LD: What a concept. So, what cases are you working on now? TC: I was, for the past couple years and until recently, outside general litigation and strategic counsel to a company that manufactured treatments for those afflicted by opioid addiction, and we had a variety of challenges including criminal and regulatory matters.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

165

500 We also had several hundred MDL cases. That was intense and very busy. I am also representing a senior intelligence official in the so-called “Durham Investigation” by the DOJ into the FBI and assorted other agencies and individuals with regard to the controversial initiation of the Russian investigation, creation and misuse of the infamous “Steele Dossier,” and the collusion of politically sponsored lawyers, consultants and others, including the media, to push false narratives. I have a handful of other matters as well, including pro bono matters. Then, I’m also working with a couple of campaigns on ensuring compliance with election laws. Plus, I’m still on the Kiawah Conservancy board and that’s enjoyable for me because of the people involved and the fact the focus of our efforts is my adopted low country and seashore in South Carolina. I can bring my work and experience with the Grand Canyon Trust into play in that role. LD: Right, that was a massive early case of yours. Tell me about that. TC: At the request of a former prosecutor friend of mine, Edward Norton, I took on a pro bono case back in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s. We succeeded in intervening in an about-to-be dismissed environmental challenge in federal court in Utah. We won an injunction against the government which we then got codified with the assistance of a bipartisan group of lawmakers as the Grand Canyon Protection Act. That injunction and later the Act limited the government’s ability to manipulate hydroelectric power flowing from Glen Canyon Dam, which was being done in a way that was detrimental to the Grand Canyon. After that, I was asked to join the Board. I was chairman for several years and loved every minute of it. The issues were and remain compelling, like restoring the Antiquities Act designation of the Bears Ears National Monument, and perpetual focus on Native American concerns, fire, drought, climate, flora and fauna. The people there are wonderful and selflessly dedicated to the Colorado Plateau and science. LD: How did you first get the idea to become a lawyer? TC: My dad first got the idea that I should be a lawyer when I was 16 and we were flying to D.C. for Boy’s Nation. I resisted it as long as I could. I failed as a rock-n-roller and as a writer, rode my 10-speed pedal bike around the country for a while, and finally a couple years after college, having tried those things, 166

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

being unqualified for anything, I got one of the only jobs available to such people, which was working on Capitol Hill. While there, I worked for a Congressman who was a Harvard Law School graduate and a Rhodes Scholar and concluded that maybe going to law school wasn’t such a bad thing if it freed you up to make a difference. My father still really wanted me to go to law school, and he was not well. I applied, and he passed away. The last thing I promised him was that I would go, so I did. LD: Wow. Was your dad a lawyer? TC: No. He was a small-town broadcaster and cable TV entrepreneur who rose through the ranks to become the chairman of the board of the National Association of Broadcasters. LD: Oh, very cool. So, what happened next? TC: I thought about being a public defender and went to law school with that purpose and took a federal clerkship assuming I’d go down that route. Then, the first trial I witnessed as a law clerk, there was a bank robber who was blatantly guilty. It was an overwhelming case as far as I was concerned, but he was acquitted. And I thought, “Well, maybe the other side needs more help,” so I became a prosecutor. LD: I love that. Is there a case that stands out from your time as a prosecutor that’s particularly memorable? I know you handled a high volume of trials. TC: We had a very accomplished office which was very collegial, everyone rooting for each other and willing to help each other grapple with evidentiary and ethical issues. Many of the best lawyers I ever knew I met there. Best job I ever had. I had a wide variety of cases, and I have clear memories of them all. Many cases involved continuing criminal enterprises – drug dealer cases that ran the gamut from the Mafia to street distribution; and lawyers, accountants, real estate people and car dealers who were at the trough. I had a couple cases where I was put in protective custody, had to wear a bulletproof vest and carry a gun because of death threats. It was Wild West stuff in Baltimore where years of racism and corruption had put the town in crises of every sort – crime, education, housing and poverty. In fact, David Simon, who wrote all the Baltimore crime sagas from “Homicide’’ through “The Wire,” was a young reporter during the time that I was there. Many of the early homicide stories he wrote about were from a Baltimore Police Department

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Aaron Podhurst

Podhurst Orseck

Litigators

Steven Quattlebaum

Quattlebaum Grooms

Litigators

Kalman Resnick

Hughes Socol

Litigators

Deborah Rhode

Stanford Law School

Remembered

Mark Robinson

Robinson Calcagnie

Litigators

Stephen Roddenberry

Akerman

Dealmakers

Sanford Jay Rosen

Rosen Bien

Litigators

David Rosenfeld

Weinberg Roger

Litigators

Rick Rule

Paul Weiss

Litigators

Patrick Salvi

Salvi Schostok

Litigators

Hollis Salzman

Robins Kaplan

Remembered

Richard Sarver

Barrasso Usdin

Litigators

John 'Jack' Scarola

Searcy Denney

Litigators

James Schwebel

Schwebel Goetz

Litigators

Mary Anne Sedey

Sedey Harper

Litigators

Elonide Semmes

Right Hat

Consultants

Anthony Shapiro

Hagens Berman

Remembered

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

167

500

2021 NAME

FIRM

CATEGORY

Joseph Shenker

Sullivan & Cromwell

Leadership

Leopold Sher

Sher Garner

Dealmakers

Nancy Shilepsky

Sherin & Lodgen

Litigators

Michael Sitrick

Sitrick

Consultants

William Smith

Abramson Smith

Litigators

Larry Sonsini

Wilson Sonsini

Dealmakers

Dan Stormer

Hadsell & Stormer

Litigators

Paul Stritmatter

Stritmatter Kessler

Litigators

Robert Sullivan

Sullivan Papain

Litigators

Steven Toll

Cohen Milstein

Litigators

Mark Wawro

Susman Godfrey

Litigators

Deborah Willig

Willig Williams

Litigators

Steven Zieff

Rudy Exelrod

Litigators

168

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Homicide squad that I worked with closely as part of my role in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. He was serious and talented from the get-go. All his work has been brilliant in translating the consequences of urban decay, public corruption, educational indifference, poverty and dated criminal justice practices. And Oprah. Oprah was another young reporter in the building on our beat. She was very sweet but also very determined. LD: Any particular trials that come to mind from that era? TC: I tried a case where a friend of mine, Marty Ward, who was a Baltimore City police detective on the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force with the DEA and FBI and countless other agencies, was murdered undercover. His partner was and is to this day a dear friend of mine. That friend and other courageous law enforcement folks were racing up a stairway to try to save Marty and got in a serious shootout. Everybody was traumatized. It was a bleak night, Dec. 3, 1984, rainy and cold and solemn and sad. I don’t think anybody emotionally recovered for a long time. I prosecuted the killer. So that was an extremely memorable and emotional case that posed many challenges. In another case, I tried the Vice-Consul of Thailand for importing heroin in diplomatic pouches some of which was sold regularly to the Mafia. We got the first search warrant ever for a diplomatic pouch. That generated several trials and stories. At the end of the day though, if I’m out on the porch looking at the sun setting and listening to the birds and ocean and suddenly that time period comes to mind, a moment I often remember is one that never merited a headline. The case involved the murder of a young woman on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. She had been a call girl in D.C., and the murderers were another call girl and two heroindealing brothers. It was a particularly difficult case to crack as the remains hadn’t been discovered for many months after the murder on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Once the agents had figured it out and the three had been apprehended, each person had to be tried separately for evidentiary reasons. There had been an elderly woman in the gallery at all three proceedings who I’d noticed but never spoken to. At the conclusion of the third trial – which was over

a year after the first trial – she approached me and said, “Mr. Cobb, I’d like to thank you for what you did for my daughter despite what she did.” She was the mother of the victim. That was real and raw. I have contemplated the dignity of that moment often since. LD: Wow. So, where did your career take you after that? TC: I briefly joined another firm, and then I got approached by Hogan & Hartson to join their D.C. office. I suggested the possibility of a Baltimore office and the then-managing partner, a Texan named Bob Glen Odle, who once worked for Sam Rayburn when he was Speaker of the House, thought it was a good idea. We both had cowboy boots on in our first meeting and connected immediately. He was a great leader who taught me so much about leadership, sustaining a culture and friendship. One of the most important things he taught me was about leadership. He exemplified the fact that the best leaders are those who don’t seek credit but instead put people in positions to succeed in a way that they feel responsible for their individual success. He had a way of making everyone from the mailroom to the receptionists to those in the corner offices feel like they had a hand on the steering wheel. Anyway, within 90 days we were up and running in Hogan’s first extra-territorial venture, in Baltimore. LD: That’s great. And, you later became part of management. TC: I was elected to the executive committee of the firm less than three years later, and I spent a lot of time in management thereafter in the litigation practice group with John Roberts (now our Chief Justice) and other very talented lawyers from whom I learned so much. I was the head of our Enforcement and Investigations practice for well over two decades as it grew exponentially. LD: Ty, while much of your work at Hogan was very confidential, I’ve always been intrigued by your jetsetting around the world to help sheiks, royalty and billionaires facing thorny issues. Can you describe the nature of that practice and share any good stories? TC: It may not have been as glamorous as it sounds. I did represent a member of the Saudi royal family and his son for many years, usually in challenging circumstances. A long and highly public case involved false charges of rape in Spain. The legal system had been manipulated effectively by the alleged victim and her mother and their representatives. The Prince didn’t even know about the case until he had

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

169

500 WHILE MANY PEOPLE ASSOCIATE ME WITH TRUMP, HISTORICALLY I HAD REPRESENTED A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS DURING VARIOUS SCANDALS GOING BACK YEARS. I WAS COUNSEL TO SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE. IN FACT, THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FEW REPUBLICAN RELATED ASSIGNMENTS I HAD IN MY CAREER. already been charged and technically convicted of the alleged crime. After several trips to Ibiza, the site of the alleged offense, and Mallorca, where the appellate office for Ibiza was located, it became clear we needed to get creative or the case could take five years or more – which the Prince, owner of banks and properties and other businesses around the world, could not endure. As a result, we successfully created a perceived opportunity that enticed the complainant (a dual Spanish and German citizen) to file a new complaint in Germany. By doing so she was forced to give a statement. The statement she provided was wildly at odds with the original complaint in Spain. As a result, her statement in Germany provided us the “new evidence” legally required, under Spanish law, to reopen the case in Spain. The Prince was fully and publicly exonerated. We had video conclusively demonstrating the Prince was in another country with his family and local dignitaries at the time of the alleged event, hundreds of photographs and dozens of witness affidavits, including some from law enforcement. But without the German legal twist, creating “new evidence,” it would have taken years to restore the reputation of the Prince. LD: Any others? TC: For another uber wealthy client, I remember a night over 30 years ago now. My friend and partner, Rich Dunne, and I were standing on a dark isolated pier in NYC. We were accompanied by several armed Customs agents and Port Authority folks. It was about 4 a.m., and it was really cold. We were drinking bad coffee, eating the obligatory donuts and swapping war stories while waiting for the client’s $100-millionplus yacht to arrive. Twenty-four hours earlier, Customs had attempted to forfeit the yacht because it had been used to illegally transport ivory and whalebone. It was a serious situation, but working transparently with the government we quickly had demonstrated the owner’s oblivious170

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ness to the wrongful activity by certain of his crew and worked out an agreement that there would be no forfeiture in exchange for the owner’s cooperation in arranging for access to the yacht once it docked in the U.S. Some contraband was seized and one or more of the crew were arrested, but the boat was released to the owner as had been agreed. Some of the other clients’ stories remain secret but because of them I got to spend many, many weeks over time in Argentina, Uruguay, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and a few other spots around the world. LD: Fascinating. So, moving to your work at the White House – suddenly, the media just had a lot to say about you and your role. I know it’s not the ﬁrst time you were in the spotlight, but with such a polarizing president, the Mueller investigation was so incredibly important. What was that like for you? TC: Well, while many people associate me with Trump, historically I had represented a number of Democrats during various scandals going back years. I represented Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith during an inquiry regarding her service as Ambassador to Ireland. I represented Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright, a former partner, in connection with the Whitewater investigation in which he was a witness. Later I was counsel to several people in the Clinton White House. In fact, the Trump White House is one of the few Republican related assignments I had in my career. My most widely known case involving a Republican was when I was a Special Trial Counsel working with Judge Alvin Adams on the HUD Independent Counsel team. While there I brought an indictment of a conservative Republican, former Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who later pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Just as with Trump, that case had nothing to do with ideology. I was approached to come to the White House after the investigation had commenced and Mueller had been appointed. Originally, I was asked to represent the President in his personal capacity. I declined.

500

Shortly thereafter, I was asked to represent the Presidency and become a government employee. After considerable thought, I agreed. I knew it would be accompanied by some... LD: Scrutiny? TC: Well, I knew 50 percent of the people would hate me and 50 percent of the people might not, and the media was not going to be kind. But I thought it was important to the country that a competent person who knew the legal and ethical path through the independent counsel maze manage that for that White House and for future Presidents. They didn’t have anybody there with that skill set. Usually, the White House counsel would be able to manage that, but [White House Counsel] Don McGahn was not a litigator and his previous handling of several issues was done in a way that failed to preserve executive privilege. This forced him and others in his office and elsewhere within the White House into the category of witnesses. As a result, he recused himself and the bulk of his office from the Russia investigation. Things were very tense between the White House and the Mueller team when I arrived as the White House had responded with dead silence to the many pending attempts to arrange an exchange of certain specific documents. There was not much trust. That needed to be addressed immediately. Together, over the following few weeks, the Office of Special Counsel and I, with the assistance of the Office of Legal Counsel within DOJ, negotiated a series of constitutionally sound ground rules that enabled the White House to fully cooperate, so we never once received a subpoena. We had a very collaborative approach to assisting them and assimilating the facts demonstrating there really was nothing to the alleged Russian collusion, and it was successful in that regard. LD: What was the legal importance of the president not being subpoenaed? TC: That is the most significant question of the whole exercise. It was certain early on that the Mueller team would want to interview the President. The governing caselaw on that is the Espy case involving former Clinton administration Secretary of Agriculture, Michael Espy from Mississippi. I represented the Clinton transition team in that matter and was very familiar with the case. The boundaries of executive privilege are addressed in part in one of the reported opinions in that case, In re Espy. That opinion refines the U.S. v. Nixon

analysis of executive privilege holding that while the President’s executive privilege is based upon the Constitution’s separation of powers requirements, it can be overcome by a showing of substantial need and a related showing that the information cannot be obtained with “due diligence” through other means. One of the reasons underlying the decision of the White House to cooperate fully, was to maintain the privilege if at all possible – a strategy important to maintaining the separation of powers. The compelling Constitutional framework for that important effort was based upon the approach of total and complete cooperation in providing documents and witnesses pursuant to and governed by the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel on July 15, 2008, under Attorney General Michael Mukasey, an opinion later invoked by Eric Holder on behalf of President Obama to prevent production of documents and information in the Fast and Furious scandal. The second leg of the legal approach was to utilize that protected cooperation to meet the Espy standard challenging the investigators. At the end of the day, no subpoena was issued for the testimony of the President. Had one been issued, the Espy standard assured a lengthy court fight with no assurance of victory for the Mueller team. For the benefit of future administrations, separation of powers was fully protected as was executive privilege, although the White House ultimately chose not to assert the privilege in full and allowed publication of the Mueller report. LD: I see. How did you feel entering into that arena? TC: I went in curious and cautious. I didn’t know what the facts were and was determined not to commit the White House to a strategic course until I had mastered them. I spent several weeks, actually, assimilating them. I had to build a staff gradually, as legal resources that had been committed to me when I was recruited were withdrawn on my arrival by the White House Counsel. As a result, I didn’t start with lawyers. I started with technicians, document people and computer people, and gradually accumulated a small but very high-quality group of lawyers. Now, just like with me, Bob Mueller didn’t create the job or the issue. He was asked to fill a role. He’s somebody I had known and respected for 30 years, and still respect. So, I think there was a mutual confidence in each other, understanding we were on different sides but that we weren’t personal enemies, that made it go smoothly. Along with his senior staff, particu-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

171

500 larly Jim Quarles who is an excellent lawyer and a better person, a constitutionally sensitive format was worked out that facilitated our ability to be collaborative. The issues were dense and required an agreed-upon understanding of certain Office of Legal Counsel opinions, one of which I mentioned moments ago, with regard to Executive Privilege, and other significant Constitutional issues. Certainly there were a few lawyers on his team who were ideological obstacles to moving the investigation at the pace it deserved, and there were legal issues, like the novel view of some on his team of law of obstruction that prompted disagreements. Yet, in dealing with Bob and Jim in particular, things went smoothly and professionally. By the time I left, everybody in the White House had shown up voluntarily without the necessity of subpoenas, we’d preserved executive privilege, they had all the necessary information, and I was done. While I had frequently been asked about my interest in other positions at the White House or within the Administration, I was never interested. My sole client was the Office of the Presidency. I didn’t represent President Trump personally and I wasn’t auditioning for another job. I came to do a specific task, and by the time I left that job was done. The President was well represented personally during my time there by Jay Sekulow and John Dowd. LD: That makes sense. And how did handling the press go while you were there? TC: It was a confounding challenge. Not so much because the information itself that needed to be assimilated and shared was controversial or embarrassing (although there was certainly some of that) but because of the fact that an astonishingly large percentage of what people were being told or asked to believe was either made up, speculation or presented one-sidedly. Some of the reasons for that were recently disclosed by the indictment of Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie who represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC and, it appears, when the Steele dossier his firm paid for and helped to circulate failed to derail the Trump campaign, another “Russian” conspiracy allegedly involving Alpha Bank was fabricated and peddled to the FBI and an eager press – that, of course, ended up being a hoax, too. I ended up doing far more press than I ever wanted to, but only actually responded in detail to the questions where the reporting was so far out of bounds and incorrect that it required some balance. 172

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

As a non-political appointee, I did not deal with the press as a cheerleader for the Administration, nor would I have done so had I been asked. Instead, I repetitively highlighted the simple facts necessary to correct gross distortions. I tried to do it in a lawyerly way. I made mistakes (as I have on occasion throughout my lifetime), and tried to learn from them, but mostly sought to stay on course to complete the task of shepherding the information required cooperatively to the Special Counsel with the hope of ending an intensely divisive event for the country. People constantly needed to be reassured the White House was still cooperating and Mueller was not going to be fired – at least not while I was there. To that end, by the way, there were a handful of occasions I called Mueller or Quarles to alert them to alleged stories that were untrue or to upcoming comments by me or others of which I thought they should be aware. I also received the same courtesy from them a couple of times – totally professional. LD: With hindsight, would you go back down the rabbit hole and take the job in the Trump administration again? And what is your takeaway from that presidency for our democracy? TC: Everyday! It is about service. And, doing one’s best to assist the country through challenging times. I think democracy is and remains under assault. I think the media has a lot to do with that particularly now that it is largely an industry where facts are ignored or abused in order to sell a narrative to an audience addicted to a bias – liberal or conservative. Facts seem revenue based now. It is sad. We have so few real leaders. Division and decline are the order of the day and there is no obvious help on the way. I would love to hear a bugle and help coming but I don’t. LD: Right. That is crazy. Now, I wanted to ask you about your kids – are any of them lawyers? TC: Yes, before mentioning the “kids,” remember my wife is a lawyer and also has a master’s in Public Health from Johns Hopkins. We have four children. Our youngest is also a lawyer. She and her wonderful husband are in Atlanta, and she’s a lawyer at King & Spalding. She was an intern for an 11th Circuit judge after her first year of law school, worked in the U.S. Attorney’s office while in law school, and clerked for a federal judge. She has had a lot of experiences similar to my own. We are really proud of all our children, their spouses and significant others and, of course, my granddaughters who are the reason I wake up with a smile!

500

Prior Year Hall of Fame Inductees NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Rosemary Alito

K&L Gates

2020

Litigators

Clifford Aronson

Skadden

2020

Dealmakers

Max Berger

Bernstein Litowitz

2020

Litigators

Alexander 'Zander' Blewett

Hoyt & Blewett

2020

Litigators

David Boies

Boies Schiller

2020

Power Brokers

Paulette Brown

Locke Lord

2020

Leadership

Erwin Chemerinsky

University of California, Berkeley, School of Law

2020

Leadership

Ty Cobb

Law Offices of Ty Cobb

2020

Power Brokers

Patrick Coughlin

Robbins Geller

2020

Litigators

Kathleen Fisher

Calvo Fisher

2020

Litigators

Thomas Fitzgerald

Winston & Strawn

2020

Leadership

Donald Godwin

Godwin Bowman

2020

Litigators

Patti Goldman

Earthjustice

2020

Compassion

Nina Gussack

Pepper Hamilton

2020

Litigators

James Harrington

Harrington & Mahoney

2020

Litigators

Richard Heimann

Lieff Cabraser

2020

Litigators

Lynne Hermle

Orrick

2020

Litigators

Anita Hill

Cohen Milstein

2020

Leadership

Cassandra Holleman

Harris County Judge

2020

Remembered

Jeffrey Kessler

Winston & Strawn

2020

Power Brokers

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

173

500

JOHN DEGROOTE

DEGROOTE PARTNERS

JOHN DEGROOTE IS ALWAYS LOOKING

for common ground. Clear-spoken and kind, with a capable air, it isn’t difﬁcult to understand why trial counsel and business leaders across a variety of industries trust him to bring their most complex disputes to resolution.

After more than a decade serving as Chief Litigation Counsel and, ultimately, as General Counsel for a global technology consulting ﬁrm, DeGroote opened the doors to his own mediation and arbitration practice at Dallas-based DeGroote Partners. Since then, he’s successfully negotiated hundreds of cases across the country and beyond on behalf of businesses, individuals, governmental entities and more. DeGroote’s clients come to him, and stick by his side, not only because of his legal acumen, but because he understands their businesses. He knows how to solve problems. But more importantly, he knows how to solve their problems. Lawdragon: Will you please describe for our readers the mix of work you do in your practice? John DeGroote: I really do three different things. I’m a mediator, I’m an arbitrator, and I serve as a “special

174

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY ALISON PREECE

situations” advisor in complex, often intractable matters. Most know what a mediator and an arbitrator do, and I often take on one of those roles – but I’m also happy to serve as a trustee, as an independent director, or as a neutral intermediary to get results despite disagreements among the stakeholders. A few of the roles I am able to discuss highlight how rewarding this practice can be – I have served as an escrow agent for significant assets in dispute while the fight continued, I have determined and distributed settlement proceeds to settling parties over a multi-year period once the dispute ended, and I have run the entities buying and selling well-known companies out of bankruptcy. So it’s really a mix of all of these things. LD: Sounds like a fascinating legal practice. How did you first become interested or involved in mediation? JD: They say that “necessity is the mother of invention,” and there’s no doubt I learned about mediation because I had to. One February while I was Chief Litigation Counsel to KPMG Consulting, our General Counsel told me I had to cut our annual litigation budget by 60 percent – with only 10 months left in the year. I had to get creative and reevaluate every

PHOTO BY LIZ HAMILTON

500 MY PRACTICE TENDS TO BE DEFINED MORE BY THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE CASES, AS WELL AS THE DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE I GET TO WORK WITH, RATHER THAN ANY SPECIFIC AREA. MOST ARE COMPLEX, OFTEN MULTIPARTY CASES INVOLVING FOLKS FROM ALL OVER, AND I LIKE IT THAT WAY. aspect of how I managed our docket, and one of the ways I did that was to meet with one of our insurers in Zurich. He told me I’d always come out ahead if I could figure out early on what a case was really worth – and pay it then. I soon turned to mediation, which is a quick and effective way to learn about a case and what it’ll take to get it settled. My team and I hit that 60 percent metric, and soon thereafter I headed west for mediator training at Pepperdine. I learned then that I had plenty left to learn. LD: Was there a case you mediated as a lawyer that pushed you toward mediation? JD: The case that comes immediately to mind involved the issue of data ownership in e-commerce, which really began to take off in the mid-1990s. Of all the companies that “touch” an online purchase, who owns – and who can leverage – the knowledge that you just bought a pair of socks online? Again, that was more than 25 years ago, but I still remember how mediators Eric Green and Ross Stoddard got that case done. I saw then how excellent mediators address a complex case with unknown facts and uncertain law, and the approach I saw then guides how I do what I do to this day. LD: Is there one practice area you focus on more than others? JD: My practice tends to be defined more by the size and complexity of the cases, as well as the diversity of people I get to work with, rather than any specific area. Most are complex, often multiparty cases involving folks from all over, and I like it that way. Whether it’s a technology dispute in Chicago or a manufacturing case in Alabama or a health care dispute right here in Texas, I feel fortunate to have a practice that seems tailored to my background. LD: Are there any trends you see in the industry that can dictate the sort of cases you take on, or do you feel like your practice consists of a pretty good mix? JD: Mediation has changed, and mediators have to change with it. I used to think of mediation as an

event that started over coffee at 9:30 and ended with a settlement or an impasse before you went home, but my practice has never really fit that mold. We like to adapt the process to the situation at hand – I have flown to visit the site of the dispute, I have interviewed a witness live in a joint session with the parties present, and I have written a letter to a Board of Directors about why a certain outcome made sense. I was once told by a lawyer I hired: “Your need is my specialty,” and I have adopted that as our unofficial mediation tagline. LD: What do you find satisfying about this kind of work? JD: I used to teach college freshmen, and I still cherish that “aha” moment when a student’s eyes light up as a difficult concept becomes clear. Mediators get the same experience, too, when they see that a party realizes the case is going to settle. It’s before the client says “yes” and often well before the negotiations end, but the decision maker’s shoulders relax a bit and the tension in their face releases ever so slightly. Their partners and their lawyers may not know it yet, but I do. They’ll be going home tonight with this case behind them. LD: Is there a particular case you’ve worked on as a mediator that really stands out to you? JD: I love cases that require creative solutions, and a significant estate matter I handled in West Texas required more of those than most. In that case the parties’ give and take at mediation all came down to one coveted piece of land, and the negotiations began to stall. I proposed an auction among the beneficiaries with proceeds from the settlement serving as the currency, and it appeared we’d have the case resolved in no time. A disagreement over who would have to bid first, and how the rest of the bidding order would be selected, quickly threatened the potential for a deal – until I thought to look for an app on my smartphone that would randomize data. After a quick download, my phone generated the bidding order for our auction, the property “sold,” and the parties had their dispute behind them.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

175

500 I USED TO TEACH COLLEGE FRESHMEN, AND I STILL CHERISH THAT “AHA” MOMENT WHEN A STUDENT’S EYES LIGHT UP AS A DIFFICULT CONCEPT BECOMES CLEAR. MEDIATORS GET THE SAME EXPERIENCE, TOO, WHEN THEY SEE THAT A PARTY REALIZES THE CASE IS GOING TO SETTLE. LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law?

LD: Is there anyone you’d consider a mentor who taught you those lessons?

JD: In college, I studied under a communication professor named Sid Hill. Sid didn’t teach me about law, but he did teach me a lot about negotiation. A couple of other undergrad students and I once accompanied him to a conference in Denver, and for whatever reason we all took the train. I’ll never forget that Sid brought a case of wine with him. It wasn’t particularly expensive wine, but he used it to tip the various team members working on the train. These bottles may have only been about $10 each, but he knew what the staff on the train wanted even more than money – and the point I took away is that most everything out there is negotiable if you know what people really want. The challenge is to ﬁgure out what that is.

JD: Absolutely. His name was Thad Cochran, and he was a senator from my home state of Mississippi. He was absolutely fantastic at working with others on both sides of the aisle, and from all walks of life, to ﬁnd ways to get deals done. He was very rarely in the national spotlight, but I think if you look back at all the things he worked on, you’d see that most of it was passed. Sometimes he had to compromise a bit, but he got the job done – often while letting others take credit. I now know that you can accomplish most anything you want in life as long as you’re willing to let someone else take the credit, and I have him to thank for that.

LD: Did you have any other jobs before you opened your own practice? JD: Before college I was fortunate enough to be selected as a United States Senate Floor Page. As a senior in high school, my job was to sit on the Senate ﬂoor and monitor the Senate’s activities and to assist them with whatever it was that they needed. I was there for a speech then-Majority Leader Howard Baker gave not 10 feet from where I sat. There had been a very spicy debate, and a number of senators in the room were starting to jockey for presidential runs. As those debates continued to escalate, Senator Baker took the microphone. He acknowledged the divergent viewpoints, but said we had a problem that needed to be solved – and now that we’d heard all the rhetoric and the positioning, we needed to talk about how we were going to get past it. The senators got a deal done soon thereafter, and that taught me a few things. First, everyone needs to be heard, and everyone needs to be able to listen to what the other side has to say without taking offense. Then we all have to focus on how we’re going to get through this. It’s the shift from “how we got here” to “where we’re going,” and it’s what I get to do every day. 176

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: How would you describe your style as an attorney? How do others perceive you? JD: I once worked for a lawyer named Wade Cooper who told me that others may be smarter than he is and some may be luckier than he is, but he could control how hard he worked – and no one would ever outwork him. In truth Wade is both smart and lucky, but what he taught me has served me well as a mediator and as an arbitrator. When I ask a party about that exhibit at the bottom of the stack, or when I explore how a case she cited in her mediation memo might apply to a lawyer’s case, they know I have read “their stuff,” and we can do a lot with the momentum and conﬁdence that comes from that discovery. LD: How do you prepare? Is every case different, or do you have a strict routine you like to follow? JD: Every case is different, but they all require real preparation and focus. We have a workflow process here where my team and I ask for documents early and schedule pre-mediation calls with counsel and often clients a week or so before mediation day. We work hard to assemble our interview notes and organize, review and digest the case documents well before the mediation starts, since you can’t ask the right questions if you don’t understand the case.

500

LD: The cases that you handle, do they last weeks, months, or years? JD: Yes, yes and yes. But backing up – I rarely get calls from people who want me to work on something that needs to be resolved tomorrow. Typically, the cases I work on are on my calendar weeks in advance. I’m usually planning everything about six weeks out, and sometimes I work with the parties over a number of months to narrow the issues, focus the discovery on what everyone really needs to understand before a decision can be made, and then bring it to conclusion. LD: Is it a challenge to focus on management issues while working “in the weeds” on mediation and other matters? JD: No, it’s not a challenge at all. I grew up as the head of litigation for a consulting ﬁrm, and some of the lessons I learned there about how businesses do what they do drive what we do today. A number of years ago as I closed out a multi-year, global project I took a hard look at my practice – I looked at everything we were doing, and I broke it all down to see exactly how things got done. For each task I asked myself: “Is this something I want to maintain, or is this something I don’t need to do anymore?” We decided to stop doing much of what we used to do, and for those tasks we wanted to keep, we built out and documented detailed workﬂows on who would handle what and when they’d do it. When you have a number of complex cases scheduled for arbitration and mediation over the next six weeks, not to mention other matters, you need to get it right. As long as you have trustworthy systems in place, you’re never going to be worried about whether you’re doing what you need to be doing – you can focus on doing the task in front of you a little better instead. LD: How do you pitch yourself to potential clients? What are they getting from you that they aren’t getting from someone else?

JD: The answer to this one is easy. Before I became a mediator, Chris Nolland told me: “Treat each mediation as if it’s your first.” If you can do that, he said, the next steps in the process will take care of themselves. Years later, it’s clear that Chris was right. LD: How do you sell yourself to someone you’re looking to partner with? JD: The world is divided into givers and takers, and, as a “giver,” I’m careful not to partner with takers. I believe that when we share ideas and strategies, it’s better for us individually and collectively, and our clients benefit from it. It always makes me laugh when folks describe other mediators as my “competitors,” since that’s not the way it works. On a Saturday you’ll often find me on a call or a series of emails with three of my supposed competitors sharing the latest on how we can do things better for everyone. LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? JD: I have served as the Scoutmaster for Troop 70, one of the oldest Scout troops in North Texas, for a number of years. Troop 70 is one of the largest troops around, with 90 or so scouts from 18 or so different schools all over Dallas, and I never get tired of seeing our scouts become better citizens and leaders. I’m an Eagle Scout, and have always known I’d give back just like those who did so for me back in Pascagoula. LD: What do you like to do in your free time? JD: Running my own business, I have a little more control over my schedule than I might otherwise. I was once told that, with your own business, you get to work any 80 hours a week you want, and that’s true to some extent. Outside of that, I have three boys, a wife I’ve been married to since before the turn of the century, and a couple of rescue labs that keep us all on our toes. They’re why I do what I do, and I’m lucky to have them.

IT ALWAYS MAKES ME LAUGH WHEN FOLKS DESCRIBE OTHER MEDIATORS AS MY “COMPETITORS,” SINCE THAT’S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. ON A SATURDAY, YOU’LL OFTEN FIND ME ON A CALL OR A SERIES OF EMAILS WITH THREE OF MY SUPPOSED COMPETITORS SHARING THE LATEST ON HOW WE CAN DO THINGS BETTER FOR EVERYONE.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

177

500 NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

David Lash

O’Melveny

2020

Compassion

Jane Michaels

Holland & Hart

2020

Litigators

Wayne Outten

Outten & Golden

2020

Leadership

Lee Phillips

Manatt

2020

Dealmakers

Stacy Phillips

Blank Rome

2020

Litigators

John Quinn

Quinn Emanuel

2020

Innovators

Connie Rice

Advancement Project

2020

Leadership

Jonathan Schiller

Boies Schiller

2020

Litigators

Roman Silberfeld

Robins Kaplan

2020

Litigators

William Urquhart

Quinn Emanuel

2020

Remembered

Christine Varney

Cravath

2020

Leadership

Leigh Walton

Bass Berry

2020

Dealmakers

Elizabeth Warren

U.S. Senate

2020

Leadership

Howard Weitzman

Kinsella Weitzman

2020

Remembered

Theodore Wells

Paul Weiss

2020

Litigators

William Whelan

Cravath

2020

Dealmakers

Lawrence Zweifach

Gibson Dunn

2020

Litigators

Margaret Zwisler

Latham

2020

Litigators

Nancy Abell

Paul Hastings

2019

Litigators

Linda Addison

Norton Rose

2019

Leadership

Corinne Ball

Jones Day

2019

Leadership

Charlene Barshefsky

WilmerHale

2019

Power Brokers

178

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Hilarie Bass

Bass Institute for Diversity & Inclusion

2019

Leadership

Philip Beck

Bartlit Beck

2019

Litigators

Candace Beinecke

Hughes Hubbard

2019

Dealmakers

David Berg

Berg & Androphy

2019

Litigators

John Branca

Ziffren Brittenham

2019

Dealmakers

Dale Cendali

Kirkland

2019

Litigators

Jay Cohen

Paul Weiss

2019

Litigators

Nina Cortell

Haynes Boone

2019

Litigators

Scott Edelman

Milbank

2019

Litigators

Dianne Elderkin

Akin Gump

2019

Litigators

Parker Folse

Susman Godfrey

2019

Litigators

Robin Gibbs

Gibbs & Bruns

2019

Litigators

Patricia Glaser

Glaser Weil

2019

Litigators

Jamie Gorelick

WilmerHale

2019

Litigators

Stuart Grant

Bench Walk Advisors

2019

Litigators

Eric Holder

Covington

2019

Power Brokers

Stacy Kanter

Skadden

2019

Dealmakers

David Kappos

Cravath

2019

Litigators

Anthony Kennedy

U.S. Supreme Court (ret.)

2019

Leadership

Thomas Kennedy

Skadden

2019

Dealmakers

Carolyn Lamm

White & Case

2019

Leadership

Judith Livingston

Kramer Dillof

2019

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

179

500 NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Patrick McGroder

Beus Gilbert

2019

Litigators

Roger Meltzer

DLA

2019

Power Brokers

Thomas Moore

Kramer Dillof

2019

Litigators

James O'Callahan

Girardi | Keese

2019

Remembered

C. Allen Parker

Wells Fargo

2019

Dealmakers

Kathleen Flynn Peterson

Ciresi Conlin

2019

Litigators

Miles Ruthberg

Latham

2019

Litigators

Shira Scheindlin

Stroock

2019

Leadership

Robert Schumer

Paul Weiss

2019

Power Brokers

Lawrence Sucharow

Labaton Sucharow

2019

Litigators

Stephen Susman

Susman Godfrey

2019

Remembered

David Tolbert

International Center for Transitional Justice

2019

Innovators

Seth Waxman

WilmerHale

2019

Litigators

Arthur Abbey

Abbey Spanier

2018

Litigators

Robert Baron

Cravath

2018

Litigators

Martha Bergmark

Voices for Civil Justice

2018

Compassion

Bruce Broillet

Greene Broillet

2018

Litigators

Richard Clary

Cravath

2018

Litigators

Martin Flumenbaum

Paul Weiss

2018

Litigators

Jay Goffman

Skadden

2018

Litigators

David Gordon

Latham

2018

Dealmakers

Russ Herman

Herman Herman

2018

Power Brokers

180

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Christy Jones

Butler Snow

2018

Litigators

Stasia Kelly

DLA

2018

Leadership

Kenton King

Skadden

2018

Dealmaker

David Levi

Duke Law School

2018

Leadership

Cheryl Little

Americans for Immigrant Justice

2018

Compassion

Colleen Mahoney

Skadden

2018

Litigators

William McLucas

WilmerHale

2018

Litigators

Carlos Mendez-Penate

Akerman

2018

Leadership

Sara Moss

Estee Lauder

2018

Dealmaker

Robert Mueller

U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel

2018

Leadership

Tom Nolan

Pearson Simon

2018

Litigators

Eileen Nugent

Skadden

2018

Dealmaker

Bernard Nussbaum

Wachtell Lipton

2018

Litigators

Debra Pole

Sidley

2018

Litigators

Pete Romatowski

Jones Day

2018

Litigators

Gloria Santona

McDonald’s

2018

Leadership

Paul Schnell

Skadden

2018

Dealmaker

Rodd Schreiber

Skadden

2018

Dealmaker

David Schulz

Ballard Spahr

2018

Litigators

Christian Searcy

Searcy Denney

2018

Litigators

Brad Smith

Microsoft

2018

Innovators

Steven Sunshine

Skadden

2018

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

181

500

Maybe we are putting the cart before the horse here, though, jumping into the big one. Which, as it happens, is how that period began for him – with an American thoroughbred racehorse, that is. Don and Carmen Godwin were at their ﬁrst Kentucky Derby on May 1, 2010, and had bet on the winning horse, Super Saver. “I received a call from the then-head of litigation. Who I know well,” he adds, “and she said, ‘Don, we have an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. We need you to come take a look. It shouldn’t be too involved.’” Well. It was the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which became one of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history – and a career-deﬁning case for Godwin. What led up to that moment? How did he arrive at this high-stakes point?

Falling in Love

DONALD GODWIN GODWIN BOWMAN BY AMY CARROLL

“YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE BP LITIGATION?” We’ve just settled in to speak with Dallas trial lawyer and Lawdragon Hall of Fame member Don Godwin, and wasted no time asking about “the big one,” his lead litigation defense for Halliburton following the Deepwater Horizon blowout disaster on April 20, 2010. So we clarify. As we soon learn, all of Godwin’s cases are important to him. From family law and estate and trust disputes to bet-the-company litigation. “But that was the most signiﬁcant case in my career to this point in time,” he says, “in terms of the amount of money involved and the quality of the lawyers on both sides of the docket. Some of the best plaintiff and defense lawyers in the United States were a part of that case, and the ultimate trial.”

182

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

After receiving a B.S. from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) in 1969, Godwin received an M.S. in Accounting in 1970 from the University of Memphis. He passed the CPA exam along the way. “I never really thought about being a lawyer, until I got out of graduate school,” he says, explaining he loved taxes and business, and thought he would be a CPA. Instead, he went on to graduate from SMU Law School in 1973. “I started out as a tax lawyer, and for about nine months, that’s what I did until I was exposed to a courtroom with one of the senior partners in the firm I was in – a federal court case – and I fell in love with litigation.” And for the last 40-plus years, litigation has been Godwin’s vocation. “I’ve had significant cases in many states,” he says. When Godwin became board certified in civil trial law in 1979, it had been just six years since law school for him. “You had to have tried 25 jury cases, tried to jury verdict, before your exam,” he says. “I had tried 33 cases, from 1973 – remember nine months of that was as a tax lawyer – so really ‘74 to ‘79, I tried 33 jury cases.”

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

The Right Call “We started our own firm in 1980,” he adds, referring to Godwin Bowman. “There were three of us. And we grew it and grew it, and things went very well.” You get the sense upon meeting Godwin that starting his own firm would have been inevitable. “I’ve always been my own person, if you will.” Godwin says. “I like trying cases and I like trying lots of them. I always wanted to be my own boss, I didn’t want to be slowed down with a lot of possible conflicts that you have in the large law firms.” He had been a partner at another firm in Dallas that had about 50 lawyers: Seay, Gwinn, Crawford, Mebus & Blakeney. “That was an upper mid-size firm in the late ‘70s,” he says, “a 100-year-old very prominent law firm in Dallas. And I was there, and I was making really good money and doing well. But I just knew I would strike out on my own at some point.” Godwin mentions two other then-Seay partners and close friends, Jim Maxwell who’s since retired, and George Carlton. The three were aligned in their manifesto. “We were all trial lawyers and we all wanted to try cases, and we didn’t want to get caught up, as it were, and not be allowed to take some cases because of conflicts,” he says. All entrepreneurial, they were not going to be members of a several hundred-person law firm. Being number 198 was not for Godwin. “We wanted to be kind of our own bosses and to have a merit-based system that would allow us to do well based upon the results of our efforts,” he adds. “We just wanted to be able to try really big cases, with lots of significant issues. And to do that, you’re going to have to be recognized as leading trial lawyers.” The leading trial lawyers in Dallas by then, Godwin says, were not coming out of the big firms, but breaking up and forming their own litigation boutiques. Godwin, Carlton and Maxwell invested everything they could in their litigation boutique to make it work.

To Help People to the Best of His Ability “Nothing has ever been able to just keep me locked down into one area of the law,” Godwin explains. How did he develop such a wide range of clients, from signiﬁcant Texas divorce matters to complex business and commercial litigation?

“I was doing a lot of work for many companies,” he says, including a large number of new car dealers in the Dallas area. His practice also included substantial divorces for extremely wealthy clients. “I’ve tried a large number of divorce cases where there’s lots of money involved, and lots of issues,” he says. “I’m talking big, big money. In the billions of dollars, when you put it together. And I’ve always enjoyed it.” Individuals and their families he’s represented in various matters over the years have included Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, Ray Hunt, Ross Perot, Truman Arnold, Hill Feinberg, Jerry Ford, Alan White and plaintiffs’ attorney John O’Quinn. “For years, I represented Ross Perot in his litigation,” Godwin says. “I was his go-to guy. And later, I represented two of his daughters in their divorces. “I’ve tried cases to jury verdict involved with divorces, will contests, breach-of-ﬁduciary-duty cases, banking litigation, energy litigation,” he adds. “I’ve just done a lot of different types of cases.” He also handled a number of gas-well blowout cases for Halliburton and Dresser before the big one.

From Dresser to Halliburton Godwin began representing Dresser Industries, a competitor to Halliburton, in 1993, doing oil ﬁeld litigation all over Texas and Louisiana – gas well blowouts, offshore and onshore, and other oil-business related litigation. By 1994, Dresser named Godwin as the chief trial lawyer for all its litigation in Texas, which is when he also started handling its asbestos cases. “Within about a year,” he says, “we’d had a lot of really great results, and tried a number of cases.” Then, in 1998, Halliburton took over Dresser. At the time, Dick Cheney – who would go on to become vice president in the George W. Bush administration – was Halliburton’s chairman, Godwin says. Bert Cornelison, who had been Dresser’s general counsel, became the head of litigation for the combined company. Halliburton was worldwide. And it was the beginning, Godwin says, of working “major, major cases for Halliburton of all kinds.” “We had a big case that involved a huge oil ﬁeld in Kazakhstan,” he says. “A big case where I was up

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

183

500 against John O’Quinn – famous trial lawyer in Houston, who was a good friend of mine, and a great lawyer that I tried many cases against.” Godwin and O’Quinn were on that case for about three years, he tells us. A complicated case, involving conﬁdentiality contracts and a large oil ﬁeld.

Halliburton’s National Counsel After only six months, Godwin was named as Halliburton’s national trial counsel, amid a whirlwind of litigation across 30 states over asbestos, a substance once commonly used in fireproofing materials and insulation and later linked to cancer. Godwin’s opponents included Baron & Budd, John O’Quinn, Walter Humphrey, Perry Weitz (NYC), Mike Kelly (Cleveland) and Mark Lanier. “They were really going after Halliburton over asbestos,” he says. “And we were fighting them, and having a lot of success with it.” There were two verdicts that went against Halliburton – but Godwin was not involved in either one of those. “One was in Mississippi, and the other one was in Baltimore,” around 2001, he says. “When that happened, it started affecting the share price and the bond prices, and what people thought of Halliburton as well.” Halliburton, he said, had become the target defendant in asbestos.

A Monumental Negotiation in Asbestos Cases The company was concerned, and retained Godwin to settle asbestos cases in at least 30 states in early 2002. “I begin meeting plaintiffs’ asbestos attorneys in our efforts to settle cases,” he recalls. “It took me 11-and-a-half months. I settled 382,000 cases nationwide, including 25,000 silica cases. And then, I was able to bring claims against the insurance companies to recover a large part of the settlements. So, Halliburton came out ﬁne.” “It was a monumental negotiation with me and all these great plaintiff lawyers,” he adds. “I developed a good relationship with many of them. I had no way of knowing at the time that years later, I would see many of these same people again, in the BP litigation.” Then came Dresser’s bankruptcy, in 2003, and a trust was established to handle asbestos claims, insulating Halliburton itself from them. 184

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“And to this day, that still holds,” Godwin says. “We rocked along after 2004, and I’m handling a case in Mobile, Ala., for them, involving a big environmental spill.” Then in 2010, he got Halliburton’s call at the Kentucky Derby. His reply: “Of course. Happy to help.” The next day was the Derby. Godwin’s horse won. And he himself was off on what would become the endurance race of his career.

Macondo Well The Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico was mainly owned by BP, and a company called Transocean was drilling it. “They were drilling 18,000 feet below the sea level, which is 13,000 feet below the bottom of the sea,” Godwin explains. Halliburton had put all of the cement in the casing. “Over 4 million barrels of oil were released from that monster well, into the Gulf of Mexico,” recalls Godwin. “Four million barrels. Imagine that. Four million barrels.” It was an unprecedented spill, damaging the U.S. shoreline from Corpus Christi, Texas, all the way to Miami Beach, Fla. When Godwin arrived at a Louisiana hotel to meet with the head of litigation at Halliburton, “the Coast Guard was there, and lawyers from Anadarko,” a partner in the Macondo Well, he recalls. “There were lawyers from other companies there that had provided services to the well, and several lawyers from BP.” The Coast Guard and everyone else in the room were working to determine the source of the problem, what caused the explosion. “Meanwhile, the well was still ﬂowing, pumping oil into the Gulf,” Godwin says. By then, he had begun receiving emails from toptier plaintiffs’ lawyers from his asbestos days, saying they’d been retained to bring suit against all entities with any involvement in the well. The Coast Guard hearings began about two weeks later, in a motel in Metairie, La. Video of them can be found on C-Span, our kind of reality TV here at Lawdragon. The sessions show Godwin was polite, patient and thorough.

500

Not only with people, but with the facts. You feel him truly walking in people’s shoes, guiding them through their past actions. He gets into the nitty-gritty while intently following a scent. “There was a former federal judge who was kind of the presiding officer,” Godwin says, referring to Wayne R. Andersen. “He was from Chicago.” After the Coast Guard hearings, the companies received notice that Congressional hearings would be held in Washington, D.C. Those lasted into 2013. “They came back and candidly put significant blame towards Halliburton,” says Godwin, “as well as BP and Transocean. Everybody had their fingers pointed at them.” Multidistrict litigation followed, and U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans was assigned to oversee the mammoth caseload. He appointed Judge Sally Shushan to be his magistrate judge, handling discovery. For about 20 months, starting in spring 2011, Godwin and his team deposed about 500 people at BP and Transocean, engineers, board members and executives. With all sides fully loaded, the trial finally began in late 2013, following a rigorous schedule. “Judge Barbier always started at 8:30 in the morning,” recalls Godwin. “He would be there early and work until 5:00 or 5:30, every day, seemingly non-stop, and come in the next day even more prepared. I never saw a judge that worked as hard as he did, and he didn’t let up on us, either.” In the end, the long years of hard work and focus paid off: “Halliburton was found liable for simple negligence, a very small percent. They paid a settlement on some of the claims before the case was over, but otherwise walked away.” BP, on the other hand, “got the worst of it,” he says: gross negligence.

Master Negotiator “I like people,” says Godwin. “I’m a jury trial lawyer. I’m not an appellate lawyer.” Godwin is also known as a master negotiator. What’s his secret? “My belief has always been that to be successful in a negotiation, you must understand both sides of the issue. It can’t all just be about you and your client,” he says. “You need to be familiar with the other side’s issue, you need to live it. You need to adapt your

mind to that way of thinking, accept their argument as true and valid. Then, poke holes in it.” His manner is consistently professional, polite and courteous. “Kill them with kindness,” he says with a wink. While Godwin knows how to be tough when needed, he maintains that “you want to let people know that you’re willing to be receptive, and you’re willing to listen to them and hear what they have to say. Because they have a point of view, as well. And I think you get far more out of a negotiation when you appear to be receptive and open-minded than if you just come in like a bull in a china closet.” The philosophy extends to his approach as a leader. “Lead by example, and lead from the front,” he says. He also emphasizes diversity and inclusion. “You want to have a diverse ﬁrm. Not only with regard to color and sex and national origin, but also diverse in opinions,” he says. Godwin wants people to disagree with him, to point out the holes in his strategies as they’re being developed. “I want to hear it all, the good, bad and the indifferent. That’s how you make truly informed decisions.” And while all opinions are counted, he also sees the value of being decisive, and leading with conviction. “People need to be able to rely on their leaders, to depend on them,” he says. “Successful businesses have to be run by strong individuals.”

The Next Generation We ask Godwin to share some of his wisdom with new lawyers who would like a career path similar to his: Robust, varied and tailored to their interests. “Well, it’s more difﬁcult today,” he says, “for young litigators to sharpen trial skills as they work to become experienced trial lawyers because fewer cases go to trial than in the past.” Still, he said, he urges people coming out of law school to do what they love, whether it’s criminal defense, family law or representing big banks and companies, and pour all their energy into it. “Don’t think of it as a job,” he says. “If you start thinking, as a lawyer, that where you go every day is to work, you’re going to the wrong place. You’re going for the wrong reason. You can’t think of it as a place to go get a check. You got to go there because you love it, and you want to help people. That’s where true success comes from.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

185

500 NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Donald Verrilli

Munger Tolles

2018

Litigators

Herbert Wachtell

Wachtell Lipton

2018

Litigators

William Whitehust

Whitehurst Harkness

2018

Leadership

Steven Zack

Boies Schiller

2018

Leadership

Cris Arguedas

Arguedas Cassman

2017

Litigators

Sam Baxter

McKool Smith

2017

Litigators

Jere Beasley

Beasley Allen

2017

Litigators

David Beck

Beck Redden

2017

Litigators

Ralph Campillo

Sedgwick

2017

Litigators

Richard Cohen

Southern Poverty Law Center

2017

Compassion

Robert Denham

Munger Tolles

2017

Dealmakers

Mike Dowd

Robbins Geller

2017

Litigators

Howard Ellin

Skadden

2017

Dealmakers

Patrick Fitzgerald

Skadden

2017

Litigators

Gary Fox

Stewart Tilghman

2017

Litigators

Richard Godfrey

Kirkland

2017

Litigators

Dicky Grigg

Spivey & Grigg

2017

Litigators

Kris Heinzelman

Cravath

2017

Dealmakers

Valerie Ford Jacob

Freshfields

2017

Dealmakers

Steven Lane

Herman Herman

2017

Litigators

William Lee

WilmerHale

2017

Leadership

Eduardo Leite

Baker & McKenzie

2017

Leadership

186

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Andrew Levander

Dechert

2017

Litigators

Simon Lorne

Millennium Corporation

2017

Dealmakers

Greg Markel

Seyfarth

2017

Litigators

Michele Coleman Mayes

New York Public Library

2017

Leadership

Gary Naftalis

Kramer Levin

2017

Litigators

Steven Newborn

Weil

2017

Litigators

Ronald Olson

Munger Tolles

2017

Litigators

Ted Olson

Gibson Dunn

2017

Litigators

Mike Papantonio

Levin Papantonio

2017

Litigators

Diane Patrick

Ropes & Gray

2017

Leadership

Richard Posner

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

2017

Judges

Gordon Rather

Wright Lindsey

2017

Litigators

Frank Schreck

Brownstein Hyatt

2017

Leadership

Paul Smith

Jenner

2017

Litigators

Broadus Spivey

Spivey & Grigg

2017

Remembered

Myron Steele

Potter Anderson

2017

Judges

John Tarantino

Adler Pollock

2017

Litigators

Chilton Davis Varner

King & Spalding

2017

Litigators

F. Joseph Warin

Gibson Dunn

2017

Litigators

Dan Webb

Winston

2017

Litigators

Mary Jo White

Debevoise

2017

Litigators

Wylie Aitken

Aitken Aitken Cohen

2016

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

187

500

STUART GROSSMAN

GROSSMAN ROTH

“HERE, I JUST WANT YOU TO SEE THIS

beautiful photo from the wedding that I received yesterday morning. How can I send it to you?”

When renowned litigator Stuart Grossman asks this, he’s glowing with pride – not for himself or a family member, but for a quadriplegic client who had gotten married just days before. A preeminent personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer with nearly 50 years of experience in the courtroom, Grossman has won billions of dollars for his clients. His cases have ranged from a historic multidistrict litigation against major banks to infant deaths to a wrongful death suit in a prominent police brutality case. That success has seen him become a prominent member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and receive the Florida Justice Association’s highest honor, the Perry Nichols Award. Most recently, Grossman earned a place in Lawdragon’s Hall of Fame. A gladiator in and out of the courtroom, he is also known for his charitable work with organizations such as United Way, the American Jewish Committee and Margaux’s Miracle Foundation, an organization he founded at

188

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in honor of his daughter, who was a victim of childhood cancer. Though he has already received lifetime achievement awards for his years as a top trial lawyer, Grossman continues to ﬁght for new clients, with recent cases including wrongful deaths from the Surfside condo collapse to representing families of victims from the Parkland shooting. And, every day, Grossman receives more photos like the one he shared of his former client’s wedding – evidence of the ways in which he continues to change lives for the better. Lawdragon: You’ve talked before about your belief in instinct — how has instinct shaped your career? Stuart Grossman: Well, in life, we often ﬁnd ourselves in situations which cause us to make instinctive decisions. Unquestionably, one of those was when I was just out of boot camp during the Vietnam War. They were drafting upwards of 100,000 folks per month then. I had just started my freshman year of law school at George Washington, and my draft board told me not to make any plans after January 1st. So, I

PHOTO BY JOSH RITCHIE

500

nosed around, and my dad, God love him, got me into the two-year active duty program with the Coast Guard. But, just after boot camp, my dad died. LD: Oh, no. SG: Instinctively, I knew then that I had to get this service behind me and get back home, help my family in their business and re-enroll at Miami Law School. So, that’s what I did. I got stationed at the search and rescue base on Miami Beach and fulfilled my two years of active duty. Towards the end of it I went in to see the commanding officer and asked to work from midnight to 8:00 a.m. so I could take classes at Miami Law School during the day. He said, “Grossman, you’ve done some good work here, go ahead.” So, I went back to the law school admissions office at Miami. I’d been previously accepted there, but declined, so they should have still had me on file. But, when I got there, there was a big box of trash on the floor. The administrator working said, “You know, we’re throwing out old files,” and she opened the trash, fished my file out of the bag, looked at it, and said, “Okay, you can start in September.” So, what happened after my dad’s death, winding up there that day before the garbage man came – is that instinctive? Who knows? LD: It seems like it. SG: Yes. And that choice continued to play out well, because after that two-year delay in my career I started working for the best firm in Miami under the auspices of J.B. Spence, who was a legendary trial lawyer. By the time I was ready to graduate they had room for me. It was perfect timing. And, instinctively, I knew I had to fight for that position, too. Initially, they had said, “Stuart, we don’t want to expand.” I came back the next day and I said, “Mr. Spence, you made a terrible mistake. This is where I belong.” I hadn’t even applied for a job anywhere else. That instinct made all the difference.

housekeeper who worked in a hotel at Miami Beach and lived in a poorer neighborhood, and I selected her. When I sat down my young partner said to me, “Stuart, you didn’t ask that lady any questions.” I looked at him and said, “I don’t have to.” I never use professional jury selectors or anything like that. You, the lawyer, have to be the person who feels out the jury one way or another. I knew that lady would go with me, and she did. LD: That’s fascinating. Speaking of your past cases, you were responsible for getting the chokehold banned in Miami-Dade County after a police brutality case you successfully tried over 20 years ago. In that case, the chokehold was used against an unarmed Black man, resulting in him living in a coma for the next decade. The last time we spoke with you was in early May 2020. Since then, the news about George Floyd broke and the Black Lives Matter movement exploded. How does it feel, given your experience, seeing this kind of case happen again, and as such a major part of cultural consciousness? SG: Right, so, I got rid of the chokehold in the city of Miami and Dade County, and that gave me a good feeling. They put my picture up in the training room of the police department, with a sign saying, “Apply the chokehold and you have to meet this guy.” But since then – honestly, I’ve been disappointed. I saw this week that a state trooper in Louisiana used a ﬂashlight to beat up a fellow who was already on the ground. His body camera, which he had managed to obfuscate for about two years, ﬁnally came to light. I’m truly afraid of those kinds of stories. I think we’ve made very little progress outside of the legislative arena, and I think that we’ve done next to nothing in terms of becoming a society that accepts differences in terms of race – and, lately, race, religion and politics.

LD: Wow. So, instinct has really shaped the direction of your whole career. What about in trial? How does instinct come into play there?

I mean, these issues go back to the beginning. The history of America – colonizing a foreign land that had indigenous species of people, plants, animals – is just unpleasant. Then, building it with slaves added to that. I’m not trying to say all white people are bad. Not at all. I’m simply saying that we should be honest about the circumstances in which the country was born and developed. And, if we’re really committed to building a free society, we should act like it.

SG: Well, I view jury selection as the most instinctive thing I do. I’ll tell you one story that says it all.

LD: What, in your opinion, are some initial steps to help us build that kind of society?

I was trying a major case, and I was questioning a jury box full of people. In the back there was a

SG: I would say the ﬁrst step is stopping these anti-voting fairness bills that are being introduced

I stayed there for 15 years and was a named partner, until Neil Roth and I opened our own ﬁrm in 1988. So, I’ve only had two jobs. I just knew.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

189

500 throughout the United States. To me, they’re baldfaced attempts at navigating around the constitutional principle of the right to vote. When you deprive an individual or a class of people of their right to vote, their stake in our society is diminished entirely. LD: Absolutely. It makes sense that you’re passionate about that topic, as your legal career was inspired by the wrongs you saw during the Civil Rights Movement, right? SG: That’s correct. LD: And, since then, you’ve fought for justice against major corporations like banks and large hospitals. What has been your most challenging case in terms of getting justice for somebody against a major entity? SG: I would say the case against Florida Power and Light. Florida Power and Light operates throughout the state of Florida as a lawful monopoly. There’s no competition, and they set their rates. They’ve always been able to do what they wanted. Well, one stormy day a power line came down in a lady’s backyard and singed her lawn. So, the power company had to raise the line, which they determined would necessitate killing all the power in the neighborhood, including traffic signals. The police came by and said, “Do you need our help?” Florida Power and Light said, “No, we don’t.” So, they killed the power, including the lights at an extremely busy intersection. Right then, these two mothers were each driving their kids home from school. Because of the lack of traffic lights on this stormy evening, they collided at that intersection, and one little girl was killed. All Florida Power and Light said was, “Sorry. It was in the execution of our duties.” We took on Florida Power and Light to get justice for that little girl and her family, and we prevailed. It was the largest verdict in the United States for the death of a child at the time. Then, it went onto intermediate appellate court, where we won three to zero. But, for reasons I’ll never understand, a judge there decided that he wanted the whole court to sit en banc. Once the whole court came in, we lost four to three. LD: Did you ever find out why that judge did that? SG: No, I didn’t. But luckily, we went up to the Supreme Court and won seven to nothing. We made sure justice prevailed. As a society, we’ve learned to tolerate major companies acting with callous indifference, like Florida Power and Light did. But we want to stop anything like what happened to that little girl from happening 190

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

to anyone else. So, every time we win a case against a company like that, we make a dent in their power by fending off the best they have. LD: Absolutely. That’s such important work. Did that case lead to any major policy changes like your chokehold case did? SG: Well, it’s now mandatory to have police present at Florida Power and Light construction sites. They don’t get to ignore their responsibility to the public any longer. And, strangely enough, it’s probably benefited the economy of law enforcement because they get all of this off-duty time being present at construction sites. LD: You really have created positive change in a material way. But I’m sure it can be difficult trying cases involving so much suffering. Which case would you say has affected you the most personally? SG: One case a few years ago impacted me profoundly. To tell you how much, this past weekend, we were invited to the client’s wedding. The client was a young man who was rendered quadriplegic when he visited Miami for the first time with his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s sister and her fiancé a few years ago. They landed at the airport, got a rental car, and drove over to the Ritz-Carlton hotel on South Beach. They went to the beach, sat out on the lounge chairs, had something to eat and later in the afternoon they decided to go for a swim. So, the young man ran into the water, dove in headfirst and hit a sandbar, breaking some of the discs in his upper neck and severing his spinal cord. As a result, he can no longer move his arms or legs. He battled through rehabilitation, but to say his life changed would be an understatement. Now, the hotel knew this sandbar existed, but there were no warning signs about it. So, I sued the Ritz-Carlton. He got a mammoth settlement out of them, which sent a message to the hotel and to the Miami tourism industry. That wasn’t the biggest case of my career, but that doesn’t matter so much to me. What matters is the fact that throughout my career I’ve been blessed to make a difference, and that is what my life has been. When my partner attended this young man’s wedding, he said that they were still talking about the case and what it meant to them all these years later. That is so rewarding. LD: That’s wonderful. Is seeing the difference you make in people’s lives what you love most about your job? SG: Without a doubt. Hands down.

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

David Andrews

PepsiCo/McCutchen (Bingham)

2016

Remembered

Ralph Baxter

Orrick

2016

Innovators

Morgan Chu

Irell

2016

Litigators

Joseph Cotchett

Cotchett Pitre

2016

Litigators

Mary Cranston

Pillsbury

2016

Leadership

Larry Feldman

Liner LLP

2016

Litigators

William Gates Sr.

World Justice Project/K&L Gates/ University of Washington Law School

2016

Remembered

Jack Greenberg

Columbia Law School/NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

2016

Remembered

Marshall Grossman

Orrick

2016

Litigators

Ben Heineman Jr.

2016

Leadership

Stephen Immelt

Hogan Lovells

2016

Power Brokers

Lou Kling

Skadden

2016

Dealmakers

Esther Lardent

Pro Bono Institute

2016

Remembered

Raymond Marshall

Sheppard Mullin

2016

Leadership

Vilma Martinez

MALDEF/Munger Tolles

2016

Leadership

Richard Matsch

U.S. District Court, Colorado

2016

Remembered

William Neukom

Microsoft/K&L Gates/Stanford/ World Justice Project

2016

Leadership

Larry Rogers Sr.

Power Rogers

2016

Litigators

Antonin Scalia

U.S. Supreme Court

2016

Remembered

Paul Tosetti

Latham

2016

Dealmakers

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

191

500

Justice, the ABA’s Long Beach Community Hispanic Association’s Nuestra Imagen Award and three separate distinctions from Long Beach’s NAACP. Lawdragon: The ﬁrm celebrated its 50th anniversary recently. How did it feel to hit that milestone? Skip Keesal: Well, it was exciting for all of us. The most important thing in the last 50 years is that I’ve had the privilege of practicing with genuinely delightful people. Any good fortune that’s come to the ﬁrm, such as its longevity, really comes down to having people who are brilliant, hard-working lawyers who share the same values.

SKIP KEESAL KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN BY EMILY JACKOWAY

WHEN HE STARTED HIS OWN FIRM

in 1970, Skip Keesal had almost nothing but unshakeable principles, a good heart and a true command of his litigation skills. It turns out, that’s all he needed to set the foundation for Keesal, Young & Logan, a full-service ﬁrm with locations in ﬁve cities, a team of over 50 attorneys and a long-held commitment to doing what’s right both within and outside the practice of law.

Keesal himself has tried more than 250 cases across a wide range of industries and issues. His prolific work has earned him numerous accolades, including induction into Lawdragon’s Hall of Fame in 2021. He is also a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the American Board of Trial Advocates. While the firm’s lawyers have earned acclaim for their legal work, they are also widely recognized for their commitment to their community and the promotion of diversity in the legal field. Among others, the firm has received the Humanitarian of the Year award from the National Conference of Community and 192

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

To me, one of the most exciting things about the anniversary was that we had a virtual party, and it was just great to see the smiles on people’s faces. A number of them have been with us for more than 40 years, and the pride that they all had, and the fact that they could see their friends of 40-plus years, was palpable. And the new attorneys who have only been with us a year or two could see the whole thing come together. LD: That sounds like an amazing experience. And, yes, I was going to ask about the firm’s retention rate – 81 percent of your attorneys started their careers with you. What do you think it is about the firm’s environment that encourages people to stay for so long? SK: When we started, we had a blank slate. It was just me, a very loyal secretary and a $60 used typewriter for five years. We had no clients and no money because I didn’t feel comfortable taking cases from either of the two firms that I had worked with previously. With that blank slate, we could say that we were only going to take people who were empathetic, straightforward, hard-working and brilliant lawyers. And, as the years went by, it followed the expression: “good begets good.” We’ve created a real community. The good fortune that we’re talking about today is due to many families – wives, husbands and significant others who have been patient while we were trying to do our jobs. In addition, we have to thank our staff and our paralegals. One of our paralegals who just retired had been with us for 41 years. Another one retired a year and a half ago at 41 years with us. A woman who takes in the checks has been with us for 44 years. And then, we have the people who’ve served lunch or served dinners or benefit charities by having our dining facility available – all of them, the whole team, should get the credit for the successes we’re discussing. LD: Absolutely. You talked about shared values within

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500 TO PARAPHRASE BOBBY KENNEDY, “SOME PEOPLE SAY WHY, AND WE SAY WHY NOT.” WE’VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD FORTUNE IN THE WORK THAT WE’VE DONE FOR THE PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS. I THINK THAT GOOD FORTUNE COMES 100 PERCENT FROM JUST ASKING OURSELVES WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS, AND THEN DOING IT. IF IT’S A CASE YOU BELIEVE OUGHT TO BE WON, THE JURY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT.

the firm. What would you say some of those values are? SK: Well, integrity is certainly one of them. Genuine caring for others, diversity and inclusion and trying to be the most gracious person in any setting – including an adversarial setting in the courtroom. LD: Yes, I was amazed by your firm’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. D&I is at the forefront of cultural conversation right now, as it should be, but this work isn’t new to you at all. Why is diversity so important to your firm? SK: Well, the importance of diversity is something that everyone here naturally knows. It’s not about the statistics. When we can help, in any way, we do. LD: Tell me about some of the programs you’ve created and been involved with. SK: Oh, we’ve been involved with I don’t know how many organizations: The NAACP, the NCCJ, CAMEO and the YMCA, to name some. I hesitate to mention any specific programming because the point isn’t to emphasize how great we or our programs are. It’s about the fact that diversity and inclusion work is a great thing to do spontaneously, not because you’re trying to attract business by doing it. We’ve been doing this work for over 50 years. We were one of the founding sponsors of the California Bar Association’s Diversity Scholarship program, which offers scholarships to underrepresented students. One of our shareholders is the president of the California Bar Association, and one of our associates is on the board of the Washington State Bar Foundation, which promotes diversity in law. We just hired five of our clerks from last summer, all of them diverse individuals. But we didn’t hire them because of that – we hired them because

they’re great lawyers. I feel a responsibility to them and to continue to do this as long as I can be effective doing it. LD: Absolutely. Speaking of hiring, when you started the firm, I’m assuming you didn’t expect it to grow as large as it did. Tell me about the moment when you realized it might become the massive firm that it is now. SK: I haven’t been asked that question in years, but I immediately flash back to that moment. I was on a weekend cruise in Long Beach, and I had my yellow pad out on the deck, getting some sun. This guy asked, “What do you do?” And I said, “Well, I’m a lawyer.” He asked how many lawyers there were in the firm, and I said 35. He said, “That’s a big firm.” And I thought to myself, geez, I guess it is. There was no grand design. I believe that I started the firm for reasons pertaining to my values. I left another firm for what I felt was a very good reason on one day’s notice, just because of my principles. My first wife had some medical problems, and we weren’t insured, so we were hopelessly in debt – I think around $56,000 in debt. So, I thought I’d go down to Long Beach and rent an apartment for an office. I thought, if I didn’t get business, I’d go down to the beach and play volleyball. But what actually happened was a lot of really nice people gave us a shot. LD: That’s amazing. Tell me about how you met your other name partners, Bob Logan and Steve Young. SK: Well, with Steve, I needed a law clerk and his dad, who was a client, asked me to interview him. Fifty years later, we’re the wind beneath one another’s wings. I feel the same way about Bob Logan. Bob tells a

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

193

500 fun story about his first conversation with me. I said, “I really like you. I think you’re going to be a great lawyer. I want to hire you, but I’m not sure I’ll have the work for you, and if I have the work, I’m not sure I’m going to be able to pay you.” He just said, “I’m in.” Fifty years later, not much has changed. LD: Spontaneity seems to lead to longevity in almost every aspect of your firm. SK: That’s exactly it. To paraphrase Bobby Kennedy, “Some people say why, and we say why not.” We’ve had a lot of good fortune in the work that we’ve done for the people over the years. I think that good fortune comes 100 percent from just asking ourselves what the right thing to do is, and then doing it. If it’s a case you believe ought to be won, the jury will understand that. LD: How have you seen the legal field change since you started your firm? SK: First, the tech component has accelerated almost beyond belief. We responded to that shift by starting an independent tech company for our firm. They now have 30 employees and have received numerous awards for their work. But the second thing that has changed is the graciousness with which lawyers deal with one another. When we got started, lawyers tended to be more gracious with each other. This is really a simple business. You should be able to go home, have a glass and a half of a Chardonnay, look back on what happened during the day and say, “I was up against a real lady, or a real gentleman, and I learned from them.” LD: Tell me about some of your most memorable past cases. SK: Well, there have been a lot of cases, and most of them have some kind of interesting story to tell. One that comes to mind involves our medical practice. A large tech company – I won’t name any names – sued a respected local hospital to collect money that was owed on a cath lab. A cath lab is a series of x-ray type equipment that involves running little cameras up through your body when they’re looking to remove blockages and the like. They’re obviously very delicate. They ought to work, and they ought to work right. This one didn’t. They wanted us to pay another $400,000 on a milliondollar cost of the machine, and the head of that hospital’s department said, “We’re not going to pay it. This thing has never worked. It’s been both dan194

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

gerous and an embarrassment to us.” One fun part of that trial involved one of the witnesses, a world-class cardiologist at this hospital. My examination of him went something like this: I said, “Doctor, as I understand it, you’re a cardiologist, you practice at this hospital, and you do cath lab procedures. Is that right?” He said, “Yes.” “When is the last time you performed a cath lab procedure?” “This morning.” “How many did you do this morning?” “Three.” “How many would you estimate that you did in your history?” “Maybe six, seven thousand.” “Did you use this particular cath lab we’re discussing?” “I did.” “How would you describe it?” “Lousy.” I asked him to tell the jury what he meant by “lousy,” and he was very direct. This guy knew this machine, knew he didn’t like it, and if you asked him any more questions, he was just going to paint the wall red again and again. We won the suit, and sometimes the good guys – in this case the hospital – really do win. We ended up cashing a check for about $3.5M against the company because of the way that they tried the case, and, frankly, the way they misled people regarding the quality of those machines. LD: And what about cases now? I know you’re still very active. SK: Well, sure. I love what I do. People ask, “Are you ever going to quit?” I say, “I’m going to go face down in the Jell-O on my desk, just like the people I practice with who’ve been with us forever.” People like Steve Young and Bob Logan signed onto working here when there were never any promises made, and I knew that if they did, I’d have responsibility over the rest of their lives. They did, and I do feel that responsibility to continue doing this work as long as I’m able.

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

John White

Cravath

2016

Power Brokers

C. Steven Yerrid

Yerrid Law Firm

2016

Litigators

Roger Aaron

Skadden

2015

Remembered

Shirley Abrahamson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

2015

Remembered

Floyd Abrams

Cahill Gordon

2015

Litigators

Cesar Alvarez

Greenberg Traurig

2015

Leadership

Eugene Anderson

Anderson Kill

2015

Remembered

Dennis Archer

Dickinson Wright

2015

Leadership

Peter Atkins

Skadden

2015

Dealmakers

Robert Barnett

Williams & Connolly

2015

Power Brokers

George Barrett

Barrett Johnston

2015

Remembered

Francis Barron

Cravath

2015

Litigators

Fred Bartlit

Bartlit Beck

2015

Litigators

Richard Beattie

Simpson Thacher

2015

Leadership

Robert Bennett

Hogan Lovells

2015

Power Brokers

Beau Biden

Grant & Eisenhofer

2015

Remembered

Sheila Birnbaum

Quinn Emanuel

2015

Litigators

Roy Black

Black Srebnick

2015

Litigators

Franci Blassberg

Debevoise & Plimpton

2015

Dealmakers

Maxwell Blecher

Blecher & Collins

2015

Remembered

Paula Boggs

Boggs Media

2015

Leadership

Caryl Boies

Boies Schiller

2015

Remembered

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

195

500

MICHAEL KELLY

WALKUP MELODIA

FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS, CELEBRATED

trial lawyer Michael Kelly has dominated courtrooms with a mix of compassion and tenacity that has yielded astounding results. Known as one of the top attorneys in the country for high-stakes personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death cases, Kelly’s role as name partner and shareholder of firm Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger has helped the firm attain more than $1B for plaintiffs. Kelly himself has litigated more than 200 cases where he has recovered at least $1M for his clients. Recently, Kelly has secured wins in a series of significant cases. Last year he was instrumental in resolving the California wildfire lawsuits brought against mammoth utility company PG&E, resulting in the creation of a $13.5B fund for victims of the fires. In a pandemic-related matter, he brought suit against the City of San Francisco for its failure to provide shelter and safety to unhoused people, who were left in a tent city in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood.

A member of the invitation-only Inner Circle of Advocates, Kelly has consistently provided volunteer

196

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY EMILY JACKCOWAY

service to various bench and bar committees and organizations. Lawdragon: When we talked to you in December of 2020, Covid-19 was stalling your ability to conduct jury trials. How are your cases proceeding now? Michael Kelly: In June, it felt like courts were opening up again. Judges were, for the most part, anxious to have jurors back in court. But with spikes in cases due to variant strains of the virus, we saw retightening of jury trial access and the re-institution of mandatory remote appearances. When jury trials returned we were back to glass panels surrounding witnesses, masks on everyone, physical separations of jurors and restricted entry into the courthouses. It’s been difﬁcult. The adversary system and litigants need jury trials. The ability to get cases to trial is a central part of the legal system. Whether you’re a plaintiff or defendant doesn’t matter. So, we’ve got our ﬁngers crossed that when springtime comes, we’ll see something much closer to pre-pandemic court access.

PHOTO BY RORY EARNSHAW

500 MY WORK IS ABOUT TRYING TO PUT CLIENTS IN A POSITION WHERE, THOUGH THEY WON’T GET BACK WHAT’S BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM, THEY ARE ABLE TO OPTIMIZE THEIR LIVES; TO MAKE LIVING AS FULFILLING AS LIFE WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT FOR THE PROBLEMS WHICH BEFELL THEM. THE CASES THAT MAKE ME PROUD ARE THOSE WHERE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP PEOPLE GET TREATMENT OR ASSISTANCE OR CARE THAT RESTORES INDEPENDENCE AND DIGNITY AND SELF-ESTEEM OR HOPE. LD: How about your non-case related work, are you still as busy with that?

effective and to be more persuasive. So, that’s how and why teaching started and how it has continued.

MK: There is always plenty to do on the volunteer side. I could probably stay busy full time focusing only on teaching and service on our state jury instruction committee.

LD: Do you have any advice you give students the most often?

Twenty years ago, the California Judicial Council decided it wanted these instructions converted to plain language. Whether you are trying a landlord/ tenant case or a battle between two tech giants, the essential roadmap for jurors are the jury instructions. So the judicial council selected 20 people to be on a committee to rewrite all of our instructions: six trial judges, four appellate court judges, a law school professor and nine practicing lawyers. The work impacts clients and cases that I have nothing to do with and directly affects how cases are decided. Since we are only here for a brief period, I feel you ought to leave this place better than you found it. In terms of leaving a positive, lasting mark, the work I have done with the California Jury Instruction Task Force has been the most important. I’m ﬂattered to still be on the committee.

MK: I tell my students that you must keep trying cases to get better. Nobody who is good at this profession got that way by being born with talent. People get better with practice. All the great lawyers I have seen practiced and thought about how they could improve case by case. And of course I tell them you won’t win all your cases. Be humble, recognize that it’s not about you. LD: Tell me about your teaching on the international stage. MK: International teaching is bittersweet. In the United States we see national politicians regularly demean our legal system. But, when I go outside of the country, whether to Eastern Europe or the United Kingdom or to Japan, foreign lawyers are envious of our constitutionally protected adversary system and want to know how to make their system more American-like.

MK: Beginning in 1981 I taught part-time for 20 years at the University of California, Hastings College of Law. I have found teaching with other skilled lawyers to be a terriﬁc way to improve my own trial skills. Watching someone who handles different kinds of cases analyze an evidence or proof problem, or structure a witness exam, or argue a case, is a great way to learn.

I was able to go to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union to work with young lawyers in new democracies. They were excited and optimistic about jury trials. In the 2008-2009 timeframe, the Japanese adopted a hybrid jury system for serious felony cases. I was ﬂattered to be invited to go there to teach criminal defense lawyers how to communicate with jurors. Historically, all their cases had been tried to three-judge panels. There was no real effort at persuasion. No visual aids, no technology in the courtroom, little imagination, no drama. Trials were about as exciting as a trip to the post ofﬁce. We taught them how to tell stories and persuade.

And if you’re going to be a lawyer who tries cases, then you are always looking to be better, to be more

I love being an ambassador for our justice system. I wish our political leaders were as excited about

LD: You’ve also done a lot of teaching both across the U.S. and throughout the world. What do you enjoy about teaching?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

197

500 our courts and judges as the people I teach beyond our borders. LD: You have such a passion for the role of jury trials in our society. Why? MK: Trials are the most tangible experience with democracy that most citizens experience. Jurors are making rules for acceptable community behavior case by case. And clients who choose trial are brave, trusting their fellow citizens to make right and fair decisions. Whether I’m representing parents who have a disabled infant as the result of poor obstetrical care, or someone who has lost a spouse or a child because of a defective product or corporate wrongdoing, I’m always impressed by my clients’ faith in their neighbors to be fairly judged by them. LD: What’s your favorite thing about the work you do? MK: My work is about trying to put clients in a position where, though they won’t get back what’s been taken from them, they are able to optimize their lives; to make living as fulﬁlling as life would have been but for the problems which befell them. The cases that make me proud are those where I have been able to help people get treatment or assistance or care that restores independence and dignity and self-esteem or hope. LD: I know you recently prevailed against the City of San Francisco in your case relating to their failure to provide sleeping sites to unhoused people during the pandemic. How did you get involved with that? MK: San Francisco has had a spike in homelessness recently due in large part to drug use. The spike is

centered in a single neighborhood called the Tenderloin neighborhood. That area has more children per capita than any other neighborhood in San Francisco. It also happens to be home to the law school I attended, which is the University of California law campus in San Francisco – UC Hastings. There were, at one point within a few blocks of the law school 600 tents on sidewalks and streets. The city had done nothing to fulfill earlier promises it had made to take care of the unhoused and provide opportunities for safe shelter. We wanted the City to protect two groups of people: the folks who did not have safe shelter, and the families and children who lived in this neighborhood and couldn’t navigate the streets. Our lawsuit was not about money. The City ultimately entered into a stipulated settlement agreement with us, whereby it agreed to rehabilitate parking lots and other abandoned city-owned property to make those available for a limited, specific number of unhoused people who didn’t want to be in shelters. In those places tents could be erected but the City agreed to provide water, restrooms and security. This continues to be a problem because I don’t think any community in the United States has figured out the ultimate solution to helping those who are unhoused. But, for the people who live in the Tenderloin neighborhood – families with children – there’s been a significant improvement in both their safety and ability to get to and from work and school.

I TELL MY STUDENTS THAT YOU MUST KEEP TRYING CASES TO GET BETTER. NOBODY WHO IS GOOD AT THIS PROFESSION GOT THAT WAY BY BEING BORN WITH TALENT. PEOPLE GET BETTER WITH PRACTICE. ALL THE GREAT LAWYERS I HAVE SEEN PRACTICED AND THOUGHT ABOUT HOW THEY COULD IMPROVE CASE BY CASE. AND OF COURSE I TELL THEM YOU WON’T WIN ALL YOUR CASES. BE HUMBLE, RECOGNIZE THAT IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.

198

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Gordon Bonnyman

Tennessee Justice Center

2015

Compassion

John Bostelman

Sullivan & Cromwell

2015

Dealmakers

Lon Bouknight

Steptoe & Johnson

2015

Leadership

John Bouma

Snell & Wilmer

2015

Remembered

James Brosnahan

Morrison & Foerster

2015

Litigators

Frank Burch

DLA Piper

2015

Leadership

Plato Cacheris

Trout Cacheris

2015

Remembered

Peter Canellos

Wachtell

2015

Dealmakers

James Carter

WilmerHale

2015

Innovators

Michael Ciresi

Ciresi Conlin

2015

Litigators

Robert Clark

Harvard Law School

2015

Leadership

Edith Brown Clement

5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

2015

Judges

John Coffee

Columbia Law School

2015

Dealmakers

H. Rodgin Cohen

Sullivan & Cromwell

2015

Power Brokers

Roxanne Conlin

Roxanne Conlin & Associates

2015

Litigators

Ralph Cook

Birmingham City Attorney

2015

Leadership

Philip Corboy

Corboy Demetrio

2015

Remembered

Jon Davidson

Freedom for All Americans

2015

Compassion

David Dean

Sullivan Papain

2015

Litigators

Robert Dell

Latham

2015

Leadership

Marshall Doke

Gardere

2015

Leadership

Bob Faiss

University of Nevada Law School/ Lionel Sawyer

2015

Remembered

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

199

500

But that success wasn’t handed to him. When Lindsey founded the firm’s New York office, the entirety of the firm (New York, San Francisco and Texas) could fit comfortably around his dining room table – which, he points out, “was not that large a table.” Now, the New York offi ce has grown to over 70 team members, and his fi rm has grown to more than 300 in 29 offices – including 200+ recruiters at the top of their field. Regarding that growth and the recognition the firm has achieved, Lindsey says, “I could not be prouder.” Lawdragon: Before you were a legal consultant and recruiter, you were a federal prosecutor. Does that experience still come into play in the work you do now?

JON LINDSEY MAJOR, LINDSEY & AFRICA BY EMILY JACKOWAY

WHEN JON LINDSEY LEFT GOVERNMENT

service as an Assistant United States Attorney (and then with the New York City Planning Commission), he undertook a career in a less certain ﬁeld. He became the New York founding partner of legal search and consulting ﬁrm Major, Lindsey & Africa, and he was counting on his gut to lead him to the right next step in his career.

His gut was right. Nearly 30 years later, he has helped the firm become the most sought-after legal search firm in the U.S. and shined a light on the importance of legal recruiting as an industry. In paving the careers of highly successful lawyers and government officials, he makes thoughtful placements using creativity, innovation and a deep understanding of his clients’ and candidates’ best interests. His groundbreaking leadership and decades-long exemplary service in the recruiting field made Lindsey a clear choice for Lawdragon’s inaugural group of nine Hall of Fame consultants and advisors.

200

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Jon Lindsey: Absolutely. In six years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, I took more than two dozen civil cases to trial, representing federal agencies ranging from the EPA and the Department of Agriculture to the Secret Service and IRS. Convincing a trier of fact – judge or jury – that your point of view should prevail requires (among other things) marshalling the relevant facts, looking ahead to possible problems, mastering the technicalities of the applicable rules, and reading your audience. All of those, in slightly different ways, come into play in helping successful partners (and senior lawyers returning from government service) join new law firms. LD: Well, to say you’ve helped many lawyers make those transitions is an understatement. Your firm has been recognized repeatedly as the top legal search firm, highlighted by your recent induction into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. To what do you credit your and your firm’s overwhelming success? JL: First of all, about the Hall of Fame. While I was truly honored by the selection, my first thought was to make sure that this wasn’t some sort of Irving Thalberg Award given to the actor they aren’t sure will make it to the next year’s Oscars. When I saw that many of the other eight inaugural members of the Hall of Fame were younger than me, I was reassured. LD: Ha! JL: More seriously, though: More than any partner or group placement or law firm merger, I consider my greatest success to be the fact that we have built a firm that is consistently voted the best legal search

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500 SOCIOLOGISTS TALK ABOUT “ACCUMULATION OF ADVANTAGE” – SUCCESS BREEDS SUCCESS, THE RICH GET RICHER, OR HOWEVER YOU CARE TO PHRASE IT. BOB MAJOR STARTED OUR FIRM IN 1982 AT A TIME WHEN LAWYERS WHO HAD BEEN ON THE LAW REVIEW AT A TOP SCHOOL WOULD NEVER DREAM OF BEING LEGAL HEADHUNTERS. BOB DID, AND HIS REPUTATION FOR INTEGRITY, INTELLIGENCE AND INSIGHTS THEN ATTRACTED OTHERS OF A SIMILAR CALIBER TO JOIN HIM. ﬁrm both nationally and in the various markets in which we work.

people doing great work attract other good people who do more and more great work.

We are the world’s largest legal search ﬁrm by a huge margin; while that gives us certain advantages in gathering market knowledge and forming relationships with clients around the globe, quality is far more critical. McDonald’s is the largest restaurant (by number of meals served), and while I love their fries, Michelin has not awarded them any stars.

LD: That’s true. Now, over the years, what advice have you most often found yourself giving lawyers who are looking to change ﬁrms?

Major, Lindsey & Africa has been blessed to be not only the biggest – placing more general counsel, more in-house counsel, more partners and more associates than anyone else – but also, so say others and not just me, the best. LD: How were you able to build to that point? JL: Sociologists talk about “accumulation of advantage” – success breeds success, the rich get richer, or however you care to phrase it. Bob Major started our firm in 1982 at a time when lawyers who had been on the Law Review at a top school would never dream of being legal headhunters. Bob did, and his reputation for integrity, intelligence and insights then attracted others of a similar caliber to join him. LD: Who makes up the team now? JL: Today, our recruiters include numerous former AmLaw 50 partners, former GCs and other stars from every segment of the legal profession. But that had to be built up over time. When the GC of the 12th largest company in the nation joined our firm, lawyers around the country took notice. When the respected long-time chair of a billion-dollar law firm joined us, others were inspired to consider not only our firm but our profession as one that they should consider for themselves. Good

JL: That’s a question we explore in our Lateral Partner Satisfaction Surveys. I’ve done four of those in the past two decades, where we ask tens of thousands of partners what was most important to them in changing firms and what brought them the greatest satisfaction in their new homes. The consistent finding – in 1996, 2006, 2014 and 2020 – is that culture trumps cash. LD: Oh, interesting. I feel like most people would expect a higher salary to be the biggest draw. JL: That’s not what we’ve observed over the course of more than 20 years. Money is not unimportant but the marginal difference between what you can earn at one firm versus another is usually not enough to be determinative. While firm culture can be a nebulous concept, if there is a dissonance between how you and the rest of the firm practice law, how you interact with colleagues, how well you play in teams, how you think about the future and a hundred other KPIs – it is not likely to be a happy journey no matter how much you earn. Of course, it is not always easy to tell a firm’s culture from a handful of meetings with pre-selected partners – I mean, try to find a firm that does not say “we are very collegial.” That is yet another reason why it can be helpful to work with an experienced recruiter who has gotten the inside scoop from partners both leaving and joining the firms you are considering. LD: Earlier you talked about lawyers realizing they might want to transition to your field – what advice

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

201

500 would you give someone looking to become a legal search consultant, and what traits do you think make someone an ideal recruiter? JL: I have thought about it a lot over the years. In the spirit of David Letterman, I have a top ten list of traits for being a successful legal recruiter. Number 10: persistence. Pick your favorite cliché (“Can’t win it if you’re not in it,” “You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take,” etc.), but you have to keep moving forward. 9. The ability to take setbacks with equanimity. This is not a profession for the faint of heart. Sometimes you do everything right and still get nothing for all your efforts over months or even years. 8. Sound organizational skills. It is crucial not to drop the ball in what can often be an excruciatingly complex process (financially and emotionally, of course, but also aspects as varied as sequencing offers from different firms, managing conflicts, refining business plans, reviewing LPQs, making sure folks show up when and where they are meant to, and so on). Like the producer of a movie or a Broadway play, you need to see all the moving parts and be able to peer around corners to see if a Mack truck is coming head-on. 7. Solid communication skills. For all the obvious reasons, the ability to write clearly and speak cogently is vital. 6. The ability to digest huge amounts of information about firms and then make connections about why a given firm’s practice or clients would make an ideal fit for a given candidate. One of my partners, fellow Lawdragon 100 honoree Jackie Knight, is particularly adept at that.

LD: Yes, she’s also being profiled in this issue. What’s next? JL: Creativity is number fi ve. Some of the most satisfying placements I have made have been the ones where a year or two later the partner says, “I never would have thought of [Firm X] if you hadn’t harangued me into going to that first meeting.” Not every successful move is to the most obvious firm. 4. Confidence that is backed up by performance. You must believe in your heart that you are making everyone better off (candidate and client) and then you need to make sure you are actually accomplishing that. 3. Be a great listener. As “Hamilton” tells us, “Talk less, smile more.” This is about your candidates’ needs and desires, and your clients – not yours. If you are not hearing them clearly, you can’t properly do your job. 2. Integrity. You are asking partners to entrust crucial steps in their careers to your care and asking firms to commit millions of dollars of their partners’ money as an investment in those candidates. If you are viewed as someone whose word cannot be relied upon, or who will say whatever they need to in order to make a quick buck, you will not have (or deserve) long-term success. Finally, and in a near-tie with integrity for #1 on the Top Ten List, it is vital to have EQ as well as IQ. This business is fundamentally about people – their lives and livelihoods. While it is important to be intelligent so that you can offer intelligent and informed counsel, it can be an extremely emotional process and you must also be attuned to the human nuances that ultimately will (and should) carry the day.

IT IS CRUCIAL NOT TO DROP THE BALL IN WHAT CAN OFTEN BE AN EXCRUCIATINGLY COMPLEX PROCESS (FINANCIALLY AND EMOTIONALLY, OF COURSE, BUT ALSO ASPECTS AS VARIED AS SEQUENCING OFFERS FROM DIFFERENT FIRMS, MANAGING CONFLICTS, REFINING BUSINESS PLANS, REVIEWING LPQS, MAKING SURE FOLKS SHOW UP WHEN AND WHERE THEY ARE MEANT TO, AND SO ON). LIKE THE PRODUCER OF A MOVIE OR A BROADWAY PLAY, YOU NEED TO SEE ALL THE MOVING PARTS AND BE ABLE TO PEER AROUND CORNERS TO SEE IF A MACK TRUCK IS COMING HEAD-ON.

202

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Ken Feinberg

Feinberg Rozen

2015

Dealmakers

James Ferguson

Ferguson Chambers

2015

Leadership

Ralph Ferrara

Proskauer

2015

Litigators

Bert Fields

Greenberg Glusker

2015

Power Brokers

Bob Fiske

Davis Polk

2015

Leadership

Joe Flom

Skadden

2015

Remembered

Tamar Frankel

Boston University School of Law

2015

Innovators

John Gibbons

Gibbons P.C.

2015

Remembered

Lee Godfrey

Susman Godfrey

2015

Innovators

Browne Greene

Greene Broillet

2015

Litigators

Mel Immergut

Milbank

2015

Leadership

Jack Jacobs

Young Conaway

2015

Judges

Joe Jamail

2015

Remembered

Robert Joffe

Cravath

2015

Remembered

Harvey Kaplan

Shook Hardy

2015

Litigators

Christopher 'Kit' Kaufman

Latham

2015

Dealmakers

Judith Kaye

Skadden

2015

Remembered

David Kendall

Williams & Connolly

2015

Leadership

Victor Kovner

Davis Wright

2015

Litigators

Ira Kurzban

Kurzban Kurzban

2015

Compassion

Martin Lipton

Wachtell

2015

Power Brokers

Maureen Mahoney

Latham & Watkins

2015

Litigators

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

203

500

KATHLEEN FLYNN PETERSON CIRESI CONLIN LLP KATHLEEN FLYNN PETERSON BELIEVES

ﬁercely in a lawyer’s power to be an empathetic advocate for those whose voices would otherwise remain unheard. Never one to stray from what she believes in, Peterson focuses on maintaining that responsibility in her practice as a trial lawyer specializing in medical malpractice cases.

A lifelong resident of Minneapolis, Peterson’s practice centers around engaging with her community and helping to alleviate personal hardship. She started her professional career as a registered nurse, and her passion for advocacy and justice in the healthcare sector motivated her to combine her nursing experience with legal education. She is now a renowned trial lawyer serving as a partner at Ciresi Conlin. Peterson’s commitment to advocating for those suffering from medical negligence has earned her countless accolades, including entrance to Lawdragon’s Hall of Fame. She is a fellow for venerated organizations such as the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Attorneys, the International Society of Barristers, the International

204

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Academy of Trial Lawyers and the American Bar Foundation. Peterson’s tireless advocacy and compassion doesn’t stop with her client work – she is also a staunch supporter of building resources for mental wellbeing in the legal profession. She speaks out about her own challenges balancing wellness with the often emotionally-taxing work of representing injured clients, and how a regular practice of mindfulness has helped. As a woman who started out in the legal profession in the 1970s and ‘80s, when the profession was (even more) overtly macho and things like maternity leave were non-existent, Peterson has also long maintained the importance of diverse voices and equal treatment in the workplace. To young lawyers now, Peterson stands as a shining example of resilience, innovation and compassion in the legal profession. Lawdragon: I’d love to hear about your transition from a nurse to a medical malpractice lawyer. How did that come about?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

Kathleen Flynn Peterson: Actually, while I was studying nursing at St. Catherine’s University, a couple events happened that instigated that transition. First, in your senior year of that program you have a lot of clinical rotations, and I chose to do one in public health and administration. During that time, I got to know a lawyer who was representing the board of nursing. He explained that after his training in law school he had actually gone to nursing school to better understand the legal aspect of the nursing profession. I thought that was fascinating. Then, at about that same time, I was summoned to jury duty for a pretty big conspiracy to commit murder trial. In the end, we rendered a guilty verdict and the defendant tried to commit suicide the first night in jail. I was shocked. So, I went to talk to the judge about whether we had done the right thing. He said that the system bends over backwards to try to be fair, and that he felt that the jury verdict was consistent with the truth of the case. But, if he hadn’t, he said, he had the power to overturn it or the other side could have appealed. I didn’t understand any of that at the time. I was just intrigued with the legal profession and absolutely taken with the lawyers’ art of advocacy. So, being impulsive, I applied to law school, was accepted, and attended William Mitchell. I had the option of going to school in the evening, which was perfect because I did still want to eat and pay my rent, so I had to work full time. For four years I worked as a nurse during the day, then went to school. Because of that, I had five years of clinical experience as a nurse before I actually started practicing law, which was invaluable to me. It wasn’t that I’d been practicing as a nurse and was dissatisfied with that. It really was a plan to try to combine two disciplines. I worked in a public health hospital, so we had a lot of patients who needed advocacy within the system to get the care they needed. The nurse’s role is to advocate for a patient, because we’re the closest to the patient in a large healthcare system. I felt that my legal education gave me a different dimension to advocate for the patients. It’s never seemed like I abandoned one discipline, but rather I was fortunate enough to have found two disciplines that I enjoy and was able to combine. LD: That makes a lot of sense. So, you started practicing law, and you had some big initial litigation wins. Is there one in particular that stands out as really memorable?

KFP: Yes, there is – an early one. When I was still an associate in the firm, maternal child nursing was my area of clinical expertise because of my background as a public health nurse working primarily with mothers and children in the poorest part of our community. At that time, in the late ‘70s, there was a lot of Laotian and Hmong immigration into our community. I worked a lot with those immigrants, helping them navigate the healthcare system and understand our culture. And so, I started working with cases involving mothers and children a great deal. The other lawyers did not have expertise in that. So, when we took on a case that involved a child with a catastrophic injury at birth, I tried the case as an associate with a young partner. As the case went on, I had more and more responsibility and ultimately took on expert witnesses and the closing argument. That case resulted in a $5M verdict, the largest verdict there had been in Minnesota at that time – and that record held for a long while. That win gave a real jump to my reputation and I became a partner shortly thereafter. That success also allowed us to get more and more people to come to us with those types of cases, which was exactly what I had gone to law school for. It was fantastic. I have handled many, many cases like that since. Helping those families is my favorite kind of work to do. LD: That is incredible work. How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer on that case, or in general? How do you think people perceive you? KFP: You know, I think part of my style comes from the fact that I didn’t have any trial lawyer mentors who were women. So I had to create that myself. Mostly, I think my style focuses on being genuine, true to who I am and gracious to others. Often, even now, the lawyers I work with still have a macho, “Ah, that’s the way we’re going to do it” attitude. And I just don’t think that we have to do it that way. What we do is so hard that we don’t have to fight with each other. The system and the clients we serve, it’s hard work. And it takes a real toll on you. That’s the gracious part of it. But I also think you have to be fearless. That’s hard. I never go into a trial, even now, without being absolutely sick to my stomach the first morning. LD: Really? KFP: Really. And I hope I never lose that feeling. You just have to face that fear and go forward. When

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

205

500 you hold the fate of another human being in your hands, that is incredible responsibility. I’ve lost cases involving children with injuries, and I know that those families’ lives would be very different if we had won. But you know, every one of those cases, those are the people who stay in touch with me. They always say, “Nobody else stood up for us. You stood up for us. You believed in our story and you fought for us. That’s all we can ask.” LD: That’s amazing. And so interesting that you were able to eschew that macho style in the courtroom, even though you didn’t have any female mentors early on. You never tried to act like a man, so to speak. Would you say that things have changed as more women have gotten into the profession? KFP: Oh, I think it’s certainly different. When I first practiced law, we dressed like men. My god, those little ties and the Brooks Brothers suits. And we were told, “Don’t keep pictures of your family if you have children. Don’t let anybody know, because they’ll think you’re less than dedicated.” I was the first associate in this large firm to become pregnant in 1982, and I was scared to death. No one had maternity policies then. My due date wasn’t until April 7th, but my son was born over the weekend, on April 4th. I wasn’t there that Monday for work because I had just had a baby. I was supposed to have a baby on April 7th, I should have been there on April 6th. Files were literally sent to the hospital to have me work on some things that needed finishing up. I was only in the hospital for about 24 hours. Then, I worked from home and two weeks later I was back in the office. LD: Wow. KFP: I just acted like nothing happened. Then, that fall the associate evaluations came back and I was told I was doing great, but I was going to be held back by a year because of my maternity leave. It wouldn’t be fair, they claimed, to the men. LD: Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me… KFP: I was so angry, but I composed myself and I walked back into my office. I thought about this one associate who was at my level and was a firm favorite, but had just been on a long honeymoon. And then in that moment I had – I don’t know if it was a stroke of brilliance or fear. I went back to them and I said, “That probably means you’re holding John back for two years, because remember he had that month-long honeymoon in 206

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Paris? And I was only gone for two weeks. I’m sure that’s what you came up with once you decided to hold John back for two years. It would only be fair to hold me back for one year. I get it.” Then I left. That afternoon they came back and said that they wouldn’t be holding me back after all. LD: HA! Good for you! KFP: After that, I worked to develop maternity policies at that firm. I became a partner, and I was the first woman elected to the executive board. I served countless terms until I realized that they had decided one girl was enough and there’d never be a second. So, I stepped off to prove the point and got another woman elected. Now you’ve got more and more women as managing partners. There’s still a lot of work to be done for equity, but it certainly is changing in the right direction. When I started practicing, there was a rule of court decorum where women had to wear skirts. Once, I wore a pantsuit during a trial, and thought I was going to be sanctioned by the court. Nothing happened. Slowly, we women realized we had some power. If three of us decided we were going to wear pantsuits, then the judge wasn’t going to throw us out. LD: Strength in numbers. And pantsuits. KFP: Exactly. So we would do that sort of thing. That’s why I embrace a style of dress that says, “I’m a woman.” I’m not a girly-girl at all, but I’m not a tomboy either. I would wear dresses, and I’d wear color. I wanted to wear what would make me feel comfortable and good about myself. And I think that resonated with jurors, too, because they were always rooting for the person who was different, and that was usually me. LD: I really marvel at your strength there. I think women talk to each other a lot more about the ins and outs of those things now. But, the two-week maternity leave, that’s insane. What kept you going? KFP: Throughout my life, I’ve had an incredible support system of family and friends, from my parents to my husband/partner of 40-plus years. And, though my work is hard, I never had to worry about some of the cultural and financial hardships that some of my clients do. I never thought my work was hard in those ways, where I didn’t know if I was going to feed my family, or if my sons were safe if they went to the grocery store. I listened to an interview with a Black woman recently who said as soon as her son was old enough to drive, she had to teach him not only to drive, but how to be safe if he got stopped. I just thought, I never thought my kids would be killed. Maybe by a car accident,

500

but not a police officer. Those are the kinds of things that are happening in my community right now and all over the world, and it puts things in perspective. LD: It’s so true. You have two sons, correct? What are they doing for work? KFP: One of my sons, my youngest, went to law school and is now a partner of mine at the law firm. LD: Oh that’s wonderful! KFP: It really is. Colin Peterson. I changed firms after 40 years two years ago and he came with me. My old firm [Robbins Kaplan] was excellent – I had wonderful opportunities there. But I really wanted my legacy to be mentoring new trial lawyers in everything that I had been able to learn. Some of my partners had already left this big firm and started a smaller one a few years before. They are absolutely incredible, so we joined them, and I was honored that my whole team went with me. Our firm’s mission and philosophy centers around protecting the future. I’m proud to say we’re staying true to that vision. LD: It’s great to hear that the firm’s philosophy is your own as well. Related to that, you’re an advocate for mental wellbeing among lawyers. I would love to hear about your own self-care practices, or advice that you have for others in that area. KFP: Sure. Well, I think that for a while I had truly lost the joy of practicing law. It was stressful mentally and physically. When I was first practicing, lawyers didn’t sleep well. They didn’t eat well. Then there’s the fact it’s not healthy to have as much alcohol as we do in our profession, which wasn’t a problem for me, but was for so many others. It was actually that thought process that led me to leave my old firm. It was really difficult to take the risk of investing in a new practice at my age, knowing I might not have the same security. But it was the right decision, and now I’m so energized. So, if you’re trying to make a decision and you’re on the edge of that cliff, I think that the hardest part is jumping. I learned a lot about the resilience involved in taking risks to do what you know in your heart is the right choice, at any age. LD: That’s great. Do you have any advice for law firm leadership on how they can make sure that their lawyers have access to resources that would help them take care of their own wellbeing? KFP: Well, I tried really hard in my other firm to be a disciple of mental and physical wellbeing in the

workplace. I shared the resources that I learned about. I talked about workplace wellness constantly. But I was told that while they believed everything I was saying, it would be an economic problem for the firm if people took their foot off the pedal. What wasn’t clicking was that those people who had their foot on the pedal were going to burn out and we might lose them. That said, I don’t fault them for their position, because there’s some reality to that mindset. At that time, it was a hard time economically for a big practice. At my firm now, we’re in a good position to make wellness a core tenet of how we practice, and we do. LD: Hopefully the whole industry embraces it; we need it. Speaking of which, you’re very active in your community. You were a board member of Minneapolis Children’s Theater Company, for one example. What do you find meaningful about your community engagement? KFP: I’ve lived in Minneapolis my whole life. I think it’s important that you put some muscle into the things that you believe in, and I believe in the renewal of this city. It’s so important to me to be a part of this community and try to make it the best version of what it can be. I also think that’s just the responsibility of professionals like myself. We are very fortunate to have the resources and influence we have, and because of that, I think we owe it to give back to our community not for self-gratification, but to make the world a better place. That’s what lawyers are supposed to do. LD: I love that. You’ve also talked before about lawyers as frontline workers for justice. Do you think we’re in decent shape or do we have work to do in terms of every American getting equal justice under the law? KFP: The rule of law takes constant vigilance. Going forward, we need to focus on upholding justice in our own country, rather than focusing on problems elsewhere. That really came into focus, I think, both with the last election and with what’s happening across the country with respect to racial inequality. During the last administration it was so hard for me to realize that I really lived in a country where I didn’t understand how diverse people’s views were. The divide became so much more visible, at least to me. So, I do think we have a lot of work to do. But that’s what justice is. Justice requires constant work. We need a vibrant justice system, dedicated lawyers, and a society that puts value on that and understands that we are each simultaneously part of the problem and of the solution. That’s the way forward.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

207

500 NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Thomas Malcolm

Jones Day

2015

Power Brokers

Billy Martin

Martin & Gitner

2015

Litigators

Havey Miller

Weil

2015

Remembered

Stacey Mobley

Howard University

2015

Innovators

Robert Morgenthau

Wachtell

2015

Remembered

Ed Moss

Shook Hardy

2015

Remembered

Ron Motley

Motley Rice

2015

Remembered

Sandra Day O'Connor

U.S. Supreme Court

2015

Judges

Jack Olender

Jack Olender & Associates

2015

Litigators

Jerry Oshinsky

Kasowitz

2015

Litigators

John Payton

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

2015

Remembered

Mariana Pfaelzer

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

2015

Remembered

John Phillips

Phillips & Cohen

2015

Litigators

Regina Pisa

Goodwin Procter

2015

Leadership

William Rehnquist

U.S. Supreme Court

2015

Remembered

Bruce Rogow

Law Offices of Bruce Rogow

2015

Litigators

Tom Sager

Ballard Spahr

2015

Innovators

Victor Schwartz

Shook Hardy

2015

Litigators

Jerry Shargel

Winston & Strawn

2015

Litigators

Robert Silver

Boies Schiller

2015

Remembered

Jock Smith

The Cochran Firm

2015

Remembered

208

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

NAME

FIRM

YEAR INDUCTED

CATEGORY

Jerry Solovy

Jenner & Block

2015

Remembered

Ted Sorensen

Paul Weiss

2015

Remembered

Gilchrist Sparks

Morris Nichols

2015

Dealmakers

Gerry Spence

Spence Law Offices

2015

Litigators

John Paul Stevens

U.S. Supreme Court

2015

Remembered

Larry Stewart

Stewart Tilghman

2015

Litigators

Geoffrey Stone

University of Chicago Law School

2015

Leadership

Brendan Sullivan

Williams & Connolly

2015

Power Brokers

James Thompson

Winston & Strawn

2015

Remembered

Anton Valukas

Jenner & Block

2015

Litigators

Keith Wetmore

Major Lindsey & Africa

2015

Leadership

Richard Wiley

Wiley Rein

2015

Innovators

Diane Wood

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

2015

Judges

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

209

500

who was navigating the acquisition of Polaroid at the time. He later developed and implemented the communications strategy for the withhold vote he led against Michael Eisner, then Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company. Roy Disney remained a client of Sitrick’s until his death 20 years later. Such high-proﬁle clientele triggered the need for a ﬁrm, so, in February 1989, Sitrick And Company was born.

MICHAEL SITRICK SITRICK AND COMPANY BY EMILY JACKOWAY

YOU KNOW MICHAEL SITRICK. Even if you don’t know his name, you know his work. And even if you don’t know his work, you know the people and companies that are indebted to him. He has advised presidential candidates, helped launch companies, tackled mammoth scandals, provided litigation support for big cases and small and put pressure on some of the world’s highest profile executives and largest companies. He is, unquestionably, who you call in a crisis. Sitrick is a PR mogul. The Los Angeles Times called him, “The Wizard of Spin.” Forbes dubbed him, “The Flack For When You’re Under Attack.” The Financial Times said he is “The spin doctor’s spin doctor.” If a high-powered person or company is in trouble, he knows how to flip the narrative on its head without ever uttering a false word. His reputation is warranted by a lengthy, successful track record: Sitrick first exploded onto the crisis management scene 33 years ago, immediately taking on noteworthy clients. Those early clients included Roy Disney, the son of the co-founder of The Walt Disney Company,

210

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Since then, Sitrick’s considerable roster has included clients from all sectors, including former chairwoman of HP Patricia Dunn, Guggenheim Partners, Wynn Resorts, Cerberus, KKR, McKinsey, Oaktree Capital, Kobe Bryant, The Los Angeles Dodgers, Bond King Bill Gross, commentator Rush Limbaugh, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and many more. He is famous in the journalism industry for his 1992 work with grocer Food Lion, which was under fire for allegedly selling expired meat, rat-gnawed cheese and having filthy stores. Those allegations were first reported by ABC News, which sent undercover journalists into the company’s factories. When Sitrick was brought on board, using outtakes he proved the broadcast was wrong and pivoted the heat in the other direction. In doing so, he spun the story into one about bad journalism, impacting journalistic practices for years to come. His work is now a Columbia Journalism School case study. When a client’s circumstance involves litigation, Sitrick’s firm works in tandem with the client’s lawyers. More than a PR firm, Sitrick and Company’s wellrounded and highly qualified team is also able to assist with legal strategy and strategic consulting. In more than one instance, the litigation strategy he assisted with and the media strategy he developed for his plaintiff clients has resulted in the other side settling within days. The firm has assisted in an astounding array of practice areas, from patent and trademark claims to asbestos litigation, from routine corporate issues to wrongful death cases. For this reason, he has been listed on Lawdragon’s “Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting” every year from 2017-2021, and this year was inducted into Lawdragon’s Hall of Fame. Lawdragon: You’ve obviously had amazing success over the years. To what do you attribute those achievements? Michael Sitrick: I’ve been very fortunate to be able to identify and put together an outstanding team. I’ve kept the firm a boutique because if you get too large, you’re only going to have pockets of excel-

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500 I’VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO WORK WITH MANY INCREDIBLE LAWYERS OVER THE YEARS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY’RE THE FIELD MARSHALS, BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO WIN THE PR BATTLE AND LOSE THE LEGAL BATTLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, MOST LAWYERS REALIZE THAT THEIR CLIENTS DON’T WANT TO WIN IN THE COURT OF LAW ONLY TO BE DESTROYED AND CANCELLED IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. SO, WE WORK VERY CLOSELY IN PARTNERSHIP. lence. If you have 1,000 employees, the chance of all 1,000 being superstars is pretty low. I approve or I hire every single partner-level person in our firm. LD: How do you determine who’s a good fit? MS: With a couple of exceptions, they tend to be exjournalists. I’ve found it’s easier to teach a journalist what PR is than a PR person what news is, and our work is all about telling a story and identifying news. I have a degree in business with a major in journalism from the University of Maryland. When you’re in journalism school, you’re taught to ask “who, what, where, why, when and how.” Here, we also ask, “So what?” Why should someone care? It’s a matter of identifying what the strategy is and then how you can achieve that strategy by utilizing your skill set. LD: Do you have any other main questions that drive your work? MS: The other primary question we ask is, “What’s the goal?” That’s where having a business degree helps. What’s your objective, and what can we do to achieve that objective? Then, the other important thing we look for is people who recognize the need to be on call all the time. You can’t wait. From a news standpoint, if you get a call at 5:00 at night or 5:00 in the morning, you can’t wait until the next day and sometimes even the next hour or the story breaks without you. That said, with regard to hiring, I must tell you that I’m a practitioner first. If I couldn’t practice, I would have retired. I love what I do. The part of my job I like least is the administrative part. LD: So, let’s get to the part of the job you do like best. Can you tell me about a client who stands out to you? MS: Well, one of those is Metabolife, a weight loss supplement company. They had a doctor they’d

talked to who, six months prior to them calling me, said that the product was safe and effective when used as directed. Then, suddenly, he was quoted in the Washington Post as saying it could kill you. I sent someone to look into the doctor, and we found out that he was listed as a paid consultant on a competing product’s website. Even so, he was going to give an interview about Metabolife on ABC’s “20/20.” I called the ABC producer to tell her what we had found, but she said she didn’t think that would affect his objectivity, to which I said, “And you can believe in Santa Claus, too.” I said, “Well, you will identify that he is a paid consultant for a competitor, won’t you? She said no. So, we took out a full-page ad in the New York Times and in the New York Post saying, “See, for the ﬁrst time ever, the complete, unedited ‘20/20’ interview before it’s broadcast. Why are we doing this?” We then listed all of the journalistic and ethical breaches in their reporting, including using a doctor who was on the payroll of a competitor without identifying him as such. I then called the Wall Street Journal the day before the ad ran. They did a major story. ABC changed the broadcast. Dramatically. Instead of the debate being about whether the product was safe, the debate became about whether ABC was being fair. In the end, the broadcast ended up being more positive than negative because they were addressing all of our concerns. LD: Wow. Are there any particularly risky moves that you’ve taken to turn the narrative? MS: Well, our work for the clothing company Lane Bryant is a kind of fun example. A very senior executive at one of the company’s advertising agencies contacted us and told us that ABC wouldn’t run their lingerie advertisements during prime time, which

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

211

500 they claimed was due to the scantily clad models in the ad. But, despite what they’d said to Lane Bryant, they were running ads for Victoria’s Secret during prime time. So, I said, “This is discrimination against full-figured women.” I suggested that we write a letter to ABC arguing that they’re discriminating against full-figured women, and then leak that letter to the New York Post, who would just love the story. After it ran, it went viral, as you might imagine. LD: Of course. MS: Everybody was picking it up. It was on CNN. USA Today picked it up. And then we helped. We made sure it went viral. ABC came back and said, “Well, again, they are scantily clad.” And I said – LD: “So is Victoria’s Secret.” MS: Right. The difference is one model is a full-figured woman, and the other is a size zero. In the end, I think we figured Lane Bryant got $20M worth of publicity from the situation. The model was opening malls and appearing on TV – she was on Jay Leno and “The Today Show.” They were only willing to spend $3-4M on advertising originally. And, of course, ABC let them air the ad in prime time. LD: Of course. That’s a great example of that outsidethe-box thinking you’re known for. Naturally, you’re known for your high-profile clients. But could you tell me about some of your lesserknown clients? Some of the other issues you cover are also fascinating, especially for lawyers. Your litigation support practice, for instance, covers asbestos litigation and environmental impact issues. MS: Sure. Well, early in the life of the firm, we were involved in the Manville asbestos situation. We’ve helped launch companies, including doing the publicity for Oaktree Capital and working with the inside people at DoubleLine, both of which are very successful. We also have a major short seller defense practice. Another case in that realm was the work we did for Hostess, which used to be called Interstate Bakeries. This is what I mean about being available 24/7: I got a call from them in Kansas City on Christmas Eve, while I was on vacation in Mexico. They were going to have to liquidate the company, which would cost 29,000 jobs, because GE Capital was reneging on their agreement to provide the financing IB needed to exit Chapter 11. 212

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I said, if my memory is correct, GE got Federal HARP or TARP funding, as part of the country’s effort to help stabilize the U.S. financial system and restart economic growth. One of my partners banging away at his computer said, yeah, you are right. Well then, I don’t think you are going to have to close this company. What do you think GE is going to say when confronted by the media and asked, didn’t you get this funding to provide exactly the kind of relief that IB needs to save jobs? What do you think they are going to say to State and Federal legislators? So, I suggested we have the unions and our employees contact their State and Federal legislators and tell them what was happening and that we reach out to Senators Schumer and Clinton. I also said, my team and I would educate the media. Strongly worded letters started pouring into GE’s CEO, including ones from Senators Schumer and Clinton. Stories began appearing in the media on how those getting this funding, including GE. were not using it for the purposes intended. And shortly after that, GE’s CEO called IB’s CEO and said they had changed their mind. They would provide the exit financing. And the Twinkie was saved. LD: Absolutely. And, when working with attorneys, does attorney-client privilege play into the dynamic in an advantageous way? MS: If there’s a legitimate reason for privilege, sure. And, knock on wood, while I know there are mixed results on PR firms claiming privilege, we’ve prevailed on the few cases we have been challenged on during the past nearly 33 years. We know what’s covered. We contribute to the legal strategy and we are more than a PR team, we are partners pursuing a common goal on behalf of the client. I’ve been fortunate to work with many incredible lawyers over the years. At the end of the day, they’re the field marshals, because you don’t want to win the PR battle and lose the legal battle. On the other hand, most lawyers realize that their clients don’t want to win in the court of law only to be destroyed and cancelled in the court of public opinion. So, we work very closely in partnership. LD: Sure. And, like many lawyers, you’re working with clients who have suffered something catastrophic – in your case, often involving their work. How do you navigate working with a client who’s going through that kind of trauma? MS: You have to understand what they’re going through, and you have to help them come up with a

500

solution. You let them focus on their problems, and you work on solving the problem. LD: That’s so helpful. Additionally, some of your more high-profile clients have been controversial figures. How do you answer people who question the morality of some of the clients you’ve worked with? MS: In the more than 1,000 cases in which we have been involved, it has only happened a few times. You do your due diligence, but sometimes the potential client doesn’t share everything with you, or the lawyers. And we always check with the lawyers. You then find yourself in a situation where you are representing a person or company where, had you known at the outset what you know now, you wouldn’t have taken the case, But, unless they lied to you, I don’t believe it is ethical that you just resign, leaving the clients and lawyers high and dry. Having said that, I have fired at least one client after that individual lied to me, though I did work with the lawyers on transitioning out. While we are known for our ability to change the narrative, there are some instances where you’re just getting the questions from the reporters, going to the lawyers and working with them to get the answers and then give it to the reporter. You may make a suggestion of how they phrase their answer, and the lawyer can agree or disagree, but it’s not a matter of placing a feature story in the newspaper or any of the other strategies I’ve discussed up until now. LD: Are there any common reasons why you’d resign a client? MS: As I said earlier, we will fire a client if they lie to us or they have personally misled us. But resigning a client is very rare. We have 200-250 active clients per year, but we have very, very few whom we’ve resigned. LD: Are there any instances in which you’d decide not to take a client on at all? MS: Yes, there are. But, usually the law firms we work with regularly are careful about vetting the clients, so we know they’re solid before we get into the case. LD: Sure. Do you have any strategies either for PR or client relationships that you can share? MS: Well, part of what we try to do when we get into a crisis situation is eliminate the need for our services as quickly as we can. You’d think that’s counterintuitive, but I play the long game. Shortly after I started the firm, I got an idea that would make the hostile

takeover my client was facing go away. I thought this will probably cost me a quarter of a million dollars or more if I give them that idea, but it’s the right thing to do. I gave them that idea, we implemented it and the deal fell apart within days. My client, needless to say, was thrilled. When you play the long game, as I did there, you build your reputation. I’d also say that you can’t worry about people being mad at you. When I would speak about the Food Lion case, journalists and PR people would say to me, “Well, aren’t you afraid ABC is going to be mad at you for how you’re speaking about them?” I would always respond, “You cannot subjugate your client’s interests for your own. If you do, you shouldn’t be in this business.” At the end of the day, we greatly respect journalists and the difficulty of their jobs. But we want to make sure their facts are accurate and they are fair, while we are serving clients at the same time. It is not mutually exclusive. LD: Absolutely. Do you have any advice specifically for lawyers? MS: In one of my books, I mention that a lot of firms will tell their clients not to comment to reporters without even knowing what the reporter wants. I respond, you can always say no comment once you find out, but at least let’s see what information she or he has, what they are looking for and the angle of their story. If you don’t comment, they will only be able to run the allegations against your client, and not your side of the story. LD: That’s great advice. So, 33 years after you started your firm, what’s kept you in practice? MS: When I had Dennis Kneale helping me with my last book, he asked me why I was still practicing, and I said, “When it stops being fun, I’ll retire.” Do I like getting up at 3:00 in the morning for a call? Not particularly, but if it’s necessary, I do it. We have and have had clients all over the world – in China, Japan, Russia and all throughout Europe. I’ve had several in the last few years (pre-pandemic) fly me from Los Angeles to Europe for what they say will be a two-hour meeting, though it is never just two hours. Recently, I said to one of them, “Do you know what this will cost.” The client responded, “Mike, I just sold my company for $3B cash. If I want you here, I can afford to get you here.” So, I will go wherever the client wants me, get up at whatever time they want to talk to me, but I’ll keep practicing.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

213

MANY STRIVE BUT FEW ACHIEVE

Donald E. Godwin Hall of Fame Lifetime Member

Induction to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers is an honor many attorneys strive to achieve but never succeed.

Donald E. Godwin has been on Lawdragon’s list of top lawyers every year since 2015 and considers being a Hall of Fame Lifetime member to be a tremendous honor. This recognition is due to both his outstanding legal talent and his unwavering efforts on behalf of his clients. Mr. Godwin is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization,

GODWINBOWMAN.COM | 214-939-4400 | DALLAS

500

The Legends We are proud to present the 2021 Legends – 32 remarkable lawyers who have thoroughly defined the past decade of Lawdragon. They are the biggest stars of trials and deals throughout America today. From Faith Gay and Philippe Selendy of Selendy & Gay to Shauna Clark, chair of Norton Rose Fulbright. Also included are the outgoing Chancellor of Delaware Chancery Court, Andre Bouchard, as well as Mary Louise Cohen, the queen of qui tam and founder of Phillips & Cohen. And, of course, the triumphant Susman Godfrey trio of Vineet Bhatia, Geoffrey Harrison and Max Tribble. As we all emerge from the most trying of times, we hope the accomplishments, dedication and hope displayed by this group inspire you, as they do us. Each has been recognized repeatedly among the 500 leading lawyers, typically 10 times. That’s the type of sustained excellence and endurance we all can use to turn to better days.

PHOTO OF GEOFFREY HARRISON BY KAYCEE JOUBERT

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

215

500

Baher Azmy

Peter Barbur

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS –

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

In his role as legal director, Azmy has led litigation efforts on many of the most critical human rights issues of our time.

NEW YORK

Among the nation’s top antitrust lawyers, Barbur has excelled for decades across a wide range of complex litigation for the firm’s elite roster of clients.

Photo by Greg Endries

Photo provided by the firm

Erica Berthou

Vineet Bhatia

KIRKLAND – NEW YORK

216

SUSMAN GODFREY – HOUSTON

As highly sought after as any attorney in her field, Berthou has had a hand in the formation of hundreds of billions of dollars of private funds.

Few lawyers of his generation have been tapped to handle such a high concentration of bet-the-company cases as Susman’s new co-managing partner.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Felix Sanchez

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Lisa Blatt

Andre Bouchard

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY – WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS – WILMINGTON

The chair of Williams & Connolly’s Supreme Court and appellate practice has built an enviable record over 42 arguments before the nation’s high court.

Bouchard has taken his mastery of Delaware law to private practice after an acclaimed seven-year stint as Chancellor of the Court of Chancery.

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

Photo by Hugh Williams

Shauna Clark

Lori Cohen

NORTON ROSE – HOUSTON

GREENBERG TRAURIG – ATLANTA

One of the nation’s top labor and employment lawyers for decades, Clark has also earned accolades for her work as firm global and U.S. chair.

Cohen has long been one of the very best trial lawyers in the nation focusing on complex cases arising in heathcare, pharmaceutical and life sciences.

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

217

500

Mary Louise Cohen

Philip Harnett Corboy, Jr.

PHILLIPS & COHEN – WASHINGTON, D.C.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO – CHICAGO

It’s hard to find a more important figure in whistleblower litigation than Cohen, a pioneer in the field who has achieved incredible recoveries over 25-plus years.

This former prosecutor has put his uncommon litigation skills to work for plaintiffs for 30 years, earning $1M or more in at least 65 cases.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Michelle Nolan

Mike Delikat

Daralyn Durie

ORRICK – NEW YORK

218

DURIE TANGRI – SAN FRANCISCO

The true bedrock of one of the nation’s most prominent corporate employment practices also built his firm’s whistleblower defense team.

The go-to trial lawyer in Silicon Valley has built an astonishing record of litigation successes in complex intellectual property disputes.

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Keith Flaum

Steve Gavin

HOGAN LOVELLS – MENLO PARK, CALIF.

WINSTON & STRAWN – CHICAGO

A major player and trusted advisor in Silicon Valley, Flaum has successfully negotiated hundreds of billions of dollars of deals over three decades.

Gavin has been a mainstay of Winston’s corporate department and Chicago headquarters with an endless string of M&As and private equity transactions.

Photo by Gregory Cowley

Photo provided by the firm

Faith Gay

Glenn Gerstell

SELENDY & GAY – NEW YORK

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL

This former federal prosecutor is one of the nation’s best trial lawyers and has earned additional acclaim for reinventing the law firm model. Photo provided by the firm

STUDIES – WASHINGTON, D.C.

The past general counsel of the NSA is one of the world’s leading thinkers on national security law and technology. Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

219

500

Nicholas Groombridge

Geoffrey Harrison

PAUL WEISS – NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY – HOUSTON

In the top echelon of patent litigators for decades, Groombridge has secured great results for Google, GE, Twitter, Amgen and many other clients.

The Susman prodigy who made partner in record time continues to dazzle the profession with an uncanny talent to win cases of any subject in any jurisdiction.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Kaycee Joubert

Adam Klein

George Lombardi

OUTTEN & GOLDEN – NEW YORK

220

WINSTON & STRAWN – CHICAGO

A pioneer in class action employment litigation, Klein is one of the rare lawyers whose achievements are of a lasting and historic national significance.

Lombardi is a critical component of Winston’s esteemed intellectual property practice as one of the nation’s very best in high-stakes patent cases.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Larry Rogers, Jr.

William Savitt

POWER ROGERS – CHICAGO

WACHTELL – NEW YORK

Among the most admired plaintiffs’ lawyers, Rogers has excelled for victims of trucking accidents, medical negligence, police brutality and other misconduct.

The co-chair of Wachtell’s storied litigation team has made his mark in Delaware and other jurisdictions in disputes over corporate transactions.

Photo by Michelle Nolan

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Ronald Schutz

Philippe Selendy

ROBINS KAPLAN – MINNEAPOLIS

SELENDY & GAY – NEW YORK

Schutz built on his engineering degree and experience on both sides of the courtroom in the Army JAG Corps to become a true elite in complex IP litigation.

Selendy made history with a $25B settlement in RMBS litigation and has continued to add to his stellar record in complex financial cases ever since.

Photo by Alexander Zoltai

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

221

500

Paul Shim

Paul Singerman

CLEARY GOTTLIEB – NEW YORK

BERGER SINGERMAN – MIAMI

A giant of the M&A field, Shim has billions of dollars of complex deals in the pipeline at any given time for a client list that is nothing short of extraordinary.

In the area of complex litigation arising from bankruptcies and reorganizations, Singerman has been at the top of the profession for decades.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Josh Ritchie

Richard Stark

Adam Streisand

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

222

SHEPPARD MULLIN – LOS ANGELES

Stark’s rare versatility extends from his success in securities and antitrust matters to patent litigation for the firm’s high-tech and life sciences clients.

Streisand’s reputation as a go-to litigator for sensitive and high-profile disputes over trusts and estates and private wealth is second to none.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Amy Cantrell

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Kathleen Sullivan

Max Tribble

QUINN EMANUEL – NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY – HOUSTON

Sullivan transitioned from a noteworthy stint in academia to build one of the nation’s most prolific appellate practices. Photo provided by the firm

Tribble’s $700M-plus verdict for HouseCanary against Title Source is emblematic of a practice that can net tremendous results against any odds. Photo provided by the firm

Helgi Walker GIBSON DUNN – WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Zornow SKADDEN – NEW YORK

The co-chair of Gibson Dunn’s deep litigation practice has excelled in a wide assortment of disputes with a dazzling appellate record for the firm’s clients.

This former federal prosecutor helped build Skadden’s white-collar practice into one the world’s best over 30-plus years of consistent excellence.

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

223

Angela Graves-Harrington HARRIS COUNTY 246TH DISTRICT COURT (HOUSTON)

500

THE LIONHEARTS These are the plaintiffs’ lawyers and voting rights advocates, litigators and dealmakers who have joined arm in arm to turn the page on hard times. They kept showing up. Whether to help a client running a strapped business to find liquidity, ensure a social media company paid for invading a populace’s privacy or advocate in the most important election of their lifetime. They won compensation for people wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. And fought for the rights of immigrants and so many others crushed in a cold, cruel winter. And they are also “The 19” – the amazing group of judges that created “Black Girl Magic” in Texas courts. The world isn’t back to normal, mind you, but we are hopeful that with the help of the amazing lawyers featured here and the tens of thousands of others considered for this guide, we will emerge. Stronger. Better. More equal. United. For if lawyers can’t get it together on right and wrong – and a better day for justice – how on earth do we expect that from a nation? This amazing representation of America’s legal system is more than 40 percent female and 25 percent inclusive. Hope feels good.

PHOTO BY FELIX SANCHEZ

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

225

500 226

Matthew Abbott

Antonia Apps

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

MILBANK NEW YORK

Stacey Abrams

Stephen Arcano

FAIR FIGHT ATLANTA

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Charla Aldous

Lisa Arrowood

ALDOUS WALKER DALLAS

ARROWOOD LLP BOSTON

Mary Rose Alexander

Kim Askew

LATHAM CHICAGO

DLA DALLAS

Samuel Alito

Roy Austin

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

FACEBOOK WASHINGTON, D.C.

Catherine Amirfar

Jodi Avergun

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

CADWALADER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kay Anderle

Noam Ayali

KELLER ANDERLE IRVINE, CALIF.

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Anders

Baher Azmy

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEW YORK

Lauren Angelilli

Andrew Bab

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ANGELA GRAVES-HARRINGTON JUDGE ANGELA GRAVES-HARRINGTON IS ONE

of those rare people who knew even as a child that she would be a lawyer. She excelled at mock-trial competitions while attending Jim Hill High School in Jackson, Miss., and earned her degree from Jackson State University, then applied to law school.

But you never know what life has in store for you, as Graves-Harrington knows all too well. After she was accepted to Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL), she and her husband, Darryl, discovered they were expecting their ﬁrst child. She met with the deans of law school, discussed it in depth with Darryl, and prayed about it, before deciding to postpone law school for a year. Ten months after giving birth to their son, Daylen, Graves-Harrington began her law school journey. When she enrolled, her son, Daylen, attended school right alongside her, sometimes sitting in class or hanging out with the professors. At TMSL, she found a support system she could never have foreseen. Her career has unfolded as a series of “you just never know what will happen.” From getting her foot in the door of a local law practice that offered her free space, to developing her own clientele, she became a force in the Houston legal community. Just one example of her impact was the recent declaration of Nov. 19th, 2021 as Judge Angela Graves-Harrington Day by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. As she contemplated what was next, however, a situation presented itself that she felt the need to address. As a family law attorney, Graves-Harrington was accustomed to addressing the plethora of issues litigants deal with in court. But one of her clients in particular, a mom with custody of her children, had faced what Graves-Harrington considered an outrageous situation with the previous judge in the Harris County 246th District Court – he had jailed her client for 180 days for not “assisting her children in returning a phone call to their father.” She decided that, instead of getting angry, she needed to do something productive about it. She’s always had a thirst for justice. Lawdragon: Tell me what you were like growing up as a child. Did you have any thoughts of becoming a lawyer? Angela Graves-Harrington: I look back at my pictures when I was a little kid, and I just knew that that’s what I was going to be. I’ve wanted to be a lawyer since, oh my gosh, before I can even remember. But I know in

BY KATRINA DEWEY

middle school was when I really started to hone in on that and participate in different competitions. By the time I got to high school, I was doing the state-level mock-trial competitions, and my team actually won. LD: Wow! AGH: And it was the first time my school had ever won. So I knew that it was for me. And just seeing some injustices that were happening. Even as a young student, I was very perceptive and realized there were situations where this just doesn’t seem right. Where one person did this, but they didn’t get suspended or kicked out of school, but another person did this, and they got kicked out for the entire year. I was not shy about asking questions, and I asked questions of my teachers and my principal. I grew up in Gulfport, Miss., which is relatively small. So my math teacher was also my brother’s godmother. And the principal was a really good friend of my mom. They kind of fostered that in me, and they didn’t mind me asking questions and challenging things. And it just stuck with me. My dad wanted me to be an engineer. He pushed me into the tech field, but my heart was just in law. That’s where my heart was and still is. LD: What school were you debating for? AGH: Jim Hill High School. It’s an IB [International Baccalaureate] school now, and they were converting to an IB school when I was there. But it was probably 95 percent African American, and it’s what they would call Title I schools. There wasn’t a lot of wealth in the school. There weren’t a lot of opportunities, but there was a lot of desire. My classmates and alumni were just really determined. It was a great experience for me because the local legal aid organization sponsored our team, and we would spend every weekend at their office preparing, as if we were preparing for a real trial. LD: Were the attorneys mentoring and coaching you? AGH: Oh, yes, yes. They were our coaches, they were our mentors, and they saw us through the entire process. But when we actually competed, it was just us. I still have a picture of us all sitting at the table, me and my favorite high school teacher, Ms. Barbara Hilliard, and all of my classmates. I guess she was what they would call the teacher mentor. When I ran for judge, I posted that picture and the story about how I’d always wanted to be an attorney. She’s still alive, and she’s just been a force in my life.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

227

500 She recognized my talent, and really pushed me. I’m glad she made me do that, because I wanted to be a lawyer, but I didn’t want to give up my whole weekend, every weekend, as a teenager. LD: You need to be a kid, too, you know? So did you enjoy law school? AGH: My law school experience was a little different than most people. Well, I’m not going to say most, but a lot of people. I was married, and I had a 10-monthold when I started law school. I was actually supposed to start law school in 2002, but we found out we were expecting a baby. I was living in Dallas at the time, so I came to Houston to meet with two of the deans. They told me how challenging law school was, and because my baby was due in October, which is right before ﬁnals, they said they really wanted me to take some time and consider all of my options. Dean Hill said to me, “it’s your choice. It’s your decision. You’ve been accepted. Apparently, you have the ability, but just think about it.” I thought about it, prayed about it, talked to my husband about it, and I said, “We’ll just wait. I’ll just sit out, and I’ll start the following year.” And I had a 10-monthold, but I never in a million years expected to have the type of support system that I had at Thurgood Marshall. Oh my goodness, just unbelievable. It’s like my child was a student at that school. He grew up in that school. LD: What’s your child’s name? AGH: Daylen, and he graduates from high school next week. And so I’m just going through all of these emotions. Daylen would come to class with me. There are two judges who were actually in my section in law school that ran with me, Toria Finch and Erica Hughes. So we would all be in class, and Daylen was right there. Dean Fernando Colon-Navarro let him sit in the class, and Dean James Matthew Douglas let him sit in the class. And then one of my really, really good friends, Meredith Lilly, was a 2L, and she would come, and she’d take him to McDonald’s. Some professors, if I was taking a test or I needed to study, they would get him and take him to the playground. There was a lot of support. I never anticipated it. I thought it was going to be a lot tougher than it was. It was tough, but it was made easier by the community within the law school. I also have another son named Aiden. He’s nine years old, and absolutely loves having a mom who is a judge.

228

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: That’s beautiful. So when you graduated from law school, how did you go about building your practice? AGH: When I graduated from law school, I had some job offers in states where I just really did not want to move. Nothing against Wisconsin or Nebraska, but I’d never been there before. And when I flew out and interviewed at these different firms, it was beautiful, but it was just so unfamiliar to me. I didn’t know where I was going to work. I called this criminal defense attorney here who was representing my mayor from back home, and I told him that I read about the case and was wondering if I could help out. He responded, “Who are you?” So I told him, “Well, I’m a recent graduate of Thurgood Marshall, and I’m just kind of unsure where I’m going to be, and I don’t know what I’m going to do. I really am passionate about civil rights and family. So I just need someone to mentor me, and I’d love to work on this case with you.” After I [met] with him [in person], he said, “Okay, when can you start?” I really feel like it’s God’s will – everything works out, even when [it seems like] it’s not supposed to. Sometimes I don’t know if I’ve taken risks or have just been listening to what God’s direction is for my life. I just saw the newspaper, Googled his phone number, and called him. He gave me beautiful office space. I just couldn’t believe it. He said, “I can’t pay you right now, but you’re free to work on any case in here. The paralegals will give you whatever you want, and then you can help with the Frank Melton case.” And so I started working. Eventually his paralegal came in my office one day, and she said, “Your work is impeccable, and there’s no way you should be working for free.” And I said, “Well, I don’t think it’s free. I’m getting a lot of experience.” And she said, “Well, experience can’t pay your bills. You’ve been here long enough. With your permission, I’m going to go and talk to Mr. Washington and tell him that you need to be paid.” And that’s what she did. So I ended up being there for a few years and got a lot of courtroom experience. He did not handle family law cases at all, so he sent all of his clients with family law cases to me. I built my practice that way. I think I got kind of burnt out a little bit with family law because it is taxing. LD: So that changed your direction for a while? AGH: It did. I started doing contract work at Shell, which was supposed to be for just maybe a few months. I ended up being there about two or three

500

years and made some really good contacts there. Then I went back out on my own and started practicing family law. By then, Mr. Washington had cut back on his practice and was close to retiring. The paralegal from his firm had joined another firm and she said, “There’s some office space over here. You need to come look at it.” After seeing the space, I told the owner there was no way I could afford it. And he said, “Just pay me what you can.” I couldn’t believe it. I worked there until I took the bench in 2019. I made really good connections at that law office and worked on some really good cases that broadened my horizon in terms of what I was willing to do. I became a little bit bolder in my representation of my clients because there were some excellent attorneys there that I learned a lot from. Then I decided to run for judge. I’ve learned in life that you should always know your “why.” And if you don’t know your “why” for doing something, you need to sit and figure it out before you go down the path. When I initially decided to run for judge, my why was spur of the moment. I was angry, and I said, “This can’t sustain me because once I get on the bench, I can’t just keep saying I’m here because I was angry at this judge. What is my purpose? What is God putting me here for, or why is He pushing me forward to run?” LD: Why were you angry? AGH: The bench that I currently sit on was held by a judge who had presided over one of my cases. And I just felt like the ruling he made was not just unjust, it was damaging. It was devastating for my client, for her family. It was just unbelievable. It was over phone calls, my client not assisting her children with returning phone calls to their father, and he sentenced her to 180 days in jail for it. LD: What? AGH: I was so just blown away by this that I could not sleep until she got out of jail. I would go up to the jail and visit her. And I said, “This isn’t right.” If my client did something to deserve being in jail, that’s one thing. But to put her in jail, take her away from her children, who had never really spent time away from her like that to the point where they couldn’t talk to her, they couldn’t see her. She dropped them off at school, and then she’s just gone. And so I was angry. LD: That’s shocking. AGH: Oh, my goodness. Once I told my story, people were like, “Why are you surprised?” They had their own stories about him. I remember talking to my dad

and crying because I was just so frustrated. I probably said that about 10 times in our conversation that he should not be on this bench. And then my dad said, “Well, then just take his bench then.” LD: Yay, dad! AGH: And so I said, “Oh, OK. Well, I don’t know how to do that, but we’ll see about it.” And – LD: But I can learn. AGH: Yes. I put my hat in the ring and just did it. I ran. I had a primary opponent, and I campaigned extremely hard on my promise of returning compassion, integrity and respect to the bench. I was successful in my primary with 82 percent of the vote. In the general election I got about 57 percent of the vote. It’s been a blessing. I never imagined that my career would take off like it has since being on the bench, just being afforded so many wonderful opportunities to make quantifiable changes in people’s lives. I didn’t foresee it. I just thought I would go to the bench and rule on cases and be fair. I was appointed to do work with the Supreme Court of Texas Children’s Commission. And I was just elected the administrative judge over all of the Harris County Family Law Courts. I just finished the Judicial Institute academy today. I was selected as one of five judges in Texas to attend this leadership academy. It’s just been amazing to be able to really put my print on the changes in our child welfare system that are so drastically needed – to have a seat at the table and have my voice heard. And that’s why I said God has directed this, because there is no way this little Black girl from Mississippi is supposed to be sitting at the table with the Supreme Court justices of the state of Texas and U.S. Congresspeople and making changes in our child welfare system. So I’m blessed. I’m extremely humbled by all of God’s graces and opportunities that have been afforded to me. LD: It’s just beautiful that sometimes that day comes. Now everybody that comes before you and women and girls that see you and know you’re a judge, it’s like their role modeling is just totally changed. AGH: Yes. That’s another thing, being able to be a role model just by being there. And I’m so amazed at how astonished these young ladies are, these little girls and sometimes teenagers when they say, “I’ve never seen a woman judge before, and you’re Black, or your hair’s just like mine.” Oh my God! It’s an amazing feeling.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

229

500 230

Rebecca Weinstein Bacon

Judy Barrasso

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS

Aelish Marie Baig

Amy Coney Barrett

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Shannon Baldwin

David “Chip” Barry Jr.

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Jon Ballis

Scott Barshay

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Peter T. Barbur

George “Gar” Bason

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Johnine Barnes

Paul Basta

GREENBERG TRAURIG WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Barry Barnett

Lucia Bates

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS BAYTOWN, TEXAS

Randall Baron

Martine Beamon

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Neil Barr

Matthew Bergmann

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Barry Berke

Gordon Bobb

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES

Sean Berkowitz

Angelo Bonvino

LATHAM CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Steve Berman

LaBarron Boone

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Erica Berthou

Cheryl Bormann

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

LAW OFFICES OF CHERYL BORMANN CHICAGO

Landis Best

Jamie Boucher

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Vineet Bhatia

Theodore Boutrous

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Frances Bivens

Ronnisha Bowman

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

Michael Blair

David H. Braff

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lisa Blatt

Richard Brand

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

CADWALADER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

231

Michael Holmes VINSON & ELKINS (DALLAS)

500

MICHAEL HOLMES JUNE IN HOUSTON. MUGGY. PUSHING 90 DEGREES. Pretty much par for the course for the attorneys accompanying Vinson & Elkins trial legend Harry Reasoner to court that morning in 1996. Among the group was a summer associate who never looked back. “Walking into the courthouse blew me away,” Michael Holmes recalls of the moment he decided to become a trial lawyer. “I thought, ‘I like the way this feels.’ And I got hooked.” Their client faced an uphill battle with long odds, but the challenges facing the team of lawyers that day was something that excited Holmes. He knew that being a trial lawyer was what he was meant to be. Holmes joined the firm the next year following his graduation from University of Texas Law School and forged his own path as a trial lawyer – getting on his feet in Justice of the Peace outposts in rural Texas and working round the clock on savings and loan litigation in Washington, D.C. before going on to command his own trial teams in Houston, Dallas, New York and Delaware’s Chancery Court. He’s made a name for himself as a lawyer who wins the biggest cases – often against the odds. Whether helping Energy Transfer LP escape a bad $37B merger or enforcing Hexion’s $10.6B acquisition of his client, Huntsman, his teams find ways to win. He was inspired to become a lawyer by his father, who grew up in a cotton farming family in Lubbock, Texas, and went to law school later in life. Holmes figures his fate was sealed as he was born during his father’s law school enrollment. His father had gone on to be a dealmaker, so Holmes had been thinking corporate before that pivotal summer. “I famously once said when someone was trying to recruit me to Vinson & Elkins as a first year that I would never work for a big firm,” says the Dallas-based Holmes, who is co-head of the Complex Commercial Litigation practice and Vice-Chair Elect of the firm. “So I’m 0 for 2, because I also thought I’d be a dealmaker.” Noted Vinson & Ekins trial lawyer, Charles ‘Tippy’ Newton led the firm’s recruiting from UT and was very persuasive to Holmes. “I feel so fortunate at the intersection of when I got to the firm and the partners I got

PHOTO BY MICHAEL PARAS

BY KATRINA DEWEY to work for. They were great lawyers and they took an interest in my life and me as a human,” he says. Not too long after he passed the bar, a partner walked into his office and asked if he was ready for his very own first trial. “He said there wasn’t much in controversy, and I said ‘I don’t care’,” and after figuring out how to get to Atlanta, Texas, Holmes found his way to a Justice of the Peace Court. His client was an upstart credit card company, Capital One, intent on establishing a reputation for enforcing debt. It was being sued by two cardholders representing themselves and disputing how much they owed. “I ended up handling a lot of Capital One cases in the state of Texas,” Holmes recalls. “Sometimes they were settled, sometimes they were tried. I learned a lot from that.” He also spent a few months that fall in Washington, D.C., as the junior member of the team representing Bank United suing the federal government in the court of federal claims challenging capital requirements that limited how much money it could make. “People would ask if I was on the night team, and I’d be like ‘morning, noon, night,’ but I loved all of it,” Holmes says. What he especially loved was being part of a large team and watching the adversarial process. “By and large, people don’t want to end up in litigation, but when they do and they have a dispute, I think the process that we have is a really good one,” he says. “Watching that from the very beginning to put together the puzzle from all the pieces and the amount of work that goes into it, I’m just very thrilled by that process.” Vinson & Elkins is and was home of one of the great stable of trial lawyers in the United States, and Holmes learned from Reasoner as well as David Harvin, Walter Stuart, Max Hendrick, John Murchison and many others. “One of them told me, ‘You’re going to perfect your craft by training, watching and doing,’” Holmes recalls. He handled the Bank United case with Stuart, whose lessons mirror what his peers see as trademark Holmes. “We had a situation as often happens in litigation, where it’s somewhat like a basketball game. Each side’s going to score points and there’s going to be some fouls,” he recalls. “And the way Walter approached the situation was calm, cool and collected and I remember thinking as an associate how impor-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

233

500 234

Kimberly Branscome

John Browne

DECHERT LOS ANGELES

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Stephen Breyer

Andrew R. Brownstein

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Brad Brian

Jacob Buchdahl

MUNGER TOLLES LOS ANGELES

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Kobi Kennedy Brinson

Russell Budd

WINSTON & STRAWN CHARLOTTE

BARON & BUDD DALLAS

Daniel Brockett

Susanna Buergel

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Alex Brown

John D. Buretta

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Benjamin D. Brown

Angela Burgess

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Reginald J. Brown

Karen Burgess

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

BURGESS LAW AUSTIN

Eugene Brown Jr.

Spencer Burkholz

HINSHAW SAN FRANCISCO

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

HE WAS INSPIRED TO BECOME A LAWYER BY HIS FATHER, WHO GREW UP IN A COTTON FARMING FAMILY IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS, AND WENT TO LAW SCHOOL LATER IN LIFE. HOLMES FIGURES HIS FATE WAS SEALED AS HE WAS BORN DURING HIS FATHER’S LAW SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. tant that was. Irrespective to what he was actually feeling, to project the sense of calm and ‘Hey, we got this. Don’t worry about it.’”

otherwise have been 12 months of litigation effort into three months, organized and devised a plan, will always stick out in my mind.”

Through a decade of intense courtroom work, he also came to appreciate the paradox that while few cases go to trial, it’s the most difﬁcult ones that do. And where they are most often litigated is in Delaware, which has become a sweet spot for Holmes and can be a bit of a Bermuda Triangle for his adversaries.

Thirteen years later, Holmes still remembers getting the call while in Florida on a family vacation.

His opponents are impressed by Holmes’ uncanny ability to win. Bernstein Litowitz trial ace Mark Lebovitch says Holmes is odd-defying. “As trial lawyers, we accept that we will win some and we will lose some. Of course winning is always better. And I have to tip my hat to Michael, since he finds a way to win cases that I thought he’d surely lose.” Holmes’ first significant experience in Delaware came in 2008 as a junior partner representing Huntsman seeking to enforce its $10.6B merger agreement with Hexion, which had agreed to buy Huntsman in 2007 but reconsidered after it reported disappointing earnings. The backdrop was the financial crisis taking hold in U.S. markets that summer as Hexion obtained an assessment from valuation firm Duff & Phelps concluding the combined company would be insolvent; it claimed its lenders were unlikely to finance the transaction. Hexion sued Huntsman in Chancery Court, seeking a judgment that it didn’t have to complete the merger because of the likely insolvency, and seeking to limit its liabilities to a $325M termination fee. The case went to trial just three months later, in September 2008. “In between,” Holmes recalls, “we took 70-some odd depositions. There were millions of documents exchanged. It was definitely an effort that needed to be orchestrated, and to watch their orchestration of it and how they collapsed what would

“I had been fishing with my son who, at that point, was nine or 10, and I didn’t have cell service on the boat,” he says. “When I got off the boat, it was one of those situations where my Blackberry just wouldn’t stop loading.” Huntsman countersued, claiming Hexion, controlled by Apollo Management and represented by Wachtell Lipton, was required to complete the deal. Hexion was contractually obligated to fulfill a number of requirements to obtain a solvency opinion, and had failed to do so, the V&E team claimed. The trial lasted six days before Chancellor Stephen Lamb, who in mere days ruled in Huntsman’s favor. He rejected Hexion’s argument that “it can be excused from performing its freely undertaken contractual obligations simply because its board of directors concluded that the performance of those contractual obligations risked insolvency.” Instead, wrote Lamb, “it was the duty of the buyer’s board of directors to explore the many available options for mitigating the risk of insolvency while causing the buyer to perform its contractual obligations in good faith. If, at closing, and despite the buyer’s best efforts, financing had not been available, the buyer could then have stood on its contract rights and faced no more than the contractually stipulated damages.” The swiftness with which Lamb delivered his opinion typifies Chancery Court. “One of the things that always amazes me is that you get these opinions that synthesize a tremendous amount of evidence and testimony in short order,” Holmes says.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

235

500

Sharon M. Burney

Michael Carlinsky

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Dane Butswinkas

Mats Carlston

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Reuben Camper Cahn

Bill Carmody

KELLER ANDERLE IRVINE, CALIF.

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Andrew Calder

James Carroll

KIRKLAND HOUSTON

SKADDEN BOSTON

Timothy G. Cameron

E. Leon Carter

CRAVATH NEW YORK

CARTER ARNETT DALLAS

Joshua Cammaker

James Carter

WACHTELL NEW YORK

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM METAIRIE, LA.

Joseph Cancila Jr.

Amy Caton

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

George Canellos

Ricardo Cedillo

MILBANK NEW YORK

DAVIS CEDILLO & MENDOZA SAN ANTONIO

Robert Carey

Kevin Andrew Chambers

HAGENS BERMAN PHOENIX

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) 236

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Vinson & Elkins’ success in the case, combined with the rise in formation of Master Limited Partnerships, created a groundswell of Delaware cases that made their way to V&E and Holmes. Among them was a suit related to the merger between C&J Energy Services and Nabors Red Lion Ltd., a subsidiary of Nabors Industries, in which Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court further delineated the responsibilities of corporate boards under Revlon v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings. That 1986 ruling determined that once the takeover of a company appeared inevitable – wanted or not – the board’s duties toward shareholders narrowed to obtaining the best price possible. While Strine’s opinion didn’t alter boards’ Revlon duties, it elaborated upon them, pulling together varied elements of case law “about what Revlon does and doesn’t actually require,” Holmes says. “It synthesizes all of those components of what the Revlon obligation is when you’re a director and you’ve made the decision that you might be interested in the sale of control.” Holmes and his team have had several Delaware trials over the past few years, and have amassed an impressive track-record against some of the biggest and best law firms. Perhaps none bigger than Williams v. Energy Transfer Equity, in which Holmes’ team pulled a Godzilla-sized rabbit out of their hat to prevent the closing of a $37B merger that had a fatal tax flaw. Like Huntsman, that case was tried on a highly-expedited schedule, with a two-day trial taking place a little more than a month after the case was filed. “Perhaps I’m a glutton for work, but expedited litigation is some-

thing I love and something our team excels at.” Energy Transfer General Counsel Tom Mason met Holmes at Vinson & Elkins not long after he joined the firm. Mason realized then, “I would want Michael on my team in about any circumstance as he was clearly smart and very competitive.” He’s tapped Holmes to represent Energy Transfer in many matters, including the epic battle that killed the Williams deal. He was impressed how Holmes surrounds himself with other talented Vinson & Elkins lawyers, and spends “day and night thinking about the case, developing strategy with input from his team and executing the strategy with determination and hard work,” says Mason. Noted trial lawyer Chris Duffy joined Vinson & Elkins from Boies Schiller in March 2020, and Holmes was a big reason. “He is an excellent lawyer on his feet with really extremely broad command of fiduciary duty issues and corporate governance issues and just general business litigation issues. I can’t think of anyone who’s at Michael’s level in that realm,” he says, noting the importance of Texas in this equation. Texas has produced some of the best trial lawyers ever, and according to Mason that’s due to the amazing collection of high-quality businesses in Texas across multiple industries, including energy, telecommunications, insurance, banking, airlines, real estate and finance that have sophisticated legal needs and therefore the need to hire attorneys with the same degree of talent as attorneys from the elite law firms of New York. “However, Texans being Texans, many of these companies preferred Texas attorneys who they could relate to

THROUGH A DECADE OF INTENSE COURTROOM WORK, HE ALSO CAME TO APPRECIATE THE PARADOX THAT WHILE FEW CASES GO TO TRIAL, IT’S THE MOST DIFFICULT ONES THAT DO. AND WHERE THEY ARE MOST OFTEN LITIGATED IS IN DELAWARE, WHICH HAS BECOME A SWEET SPOT FOR HOLMES AND CAN BE A BIT OF A BERMUDA TRIANGLE FOR HIS ADVERSARIES. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

237

500 238

Deborah Chang

Linda Coberly

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Peter Wilson Chatfield

Jeff Cody

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT DALLAS

Doris Cheng

Lori Cohen

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

GREENBERG TRAURIG ATLANTA

Evan R. Chesler

Mary Louise Cohen

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Apalla Chopra

Robin Cohen

O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES

COHEN ZIFFER NEW YORK

Shauna Clark

Steven Cohen

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Kristen Clarke

Vincent Cohen Jr.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Taj Clayton

Eva Cole

KIRKLAND DALLAS

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Paul Clement

Jason Collins

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THREE YEARS AGO, HOLMES BECAME INVOLVED IN STRATEGY FOR VINSON & ELKINS’ COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION PRACTICE AND IN JANUARY, WAS NAMED ITS CO-HEAD. IN JANUARY 2021, HE WILL BECOME ONE OF FOUR MEMBERS OF AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE LEADING THE FIRM, HOLDING THE TITLE OF VICE CHAIR. in a way that New York attorneys may not,” says Mason. The life of a top trial lawyer can be kaleidoscopic, pulled between the constant whittling required to prepare for and win complex business battles and the grand envisioning necessary to surmount global law ﬁrm competition. Three years ago, Holmes became involved in strategy for Vinson & Elkins’ complex commercial litigation practice and in January, was named its co-head. In January 2021, he will become one of four members of an executive committee leading the ﬁrm, holding the title of vice chair alongside chair-elect, Keith Fullenweider; vice chair-elect Hilary Preston, who’s based in Austin and New York and specializes in tech, intellectual property and sports law; and vice chair-elect Jim Fox, a transactional lawyer based in New York. It’s a new structure for Vinson & Elkins, which has been led by Chairman Mark Kelly and Managing Partner Scott Wulfe for the past 10 years and a single managing partner, Joe Dilg, in the decade before that. “It’s exciting,” Holmes says. “It’s an incredible responsibility that I look forward to; I look forward to paying back everything, everyone who supported me.” Holmes hopes to continue the deep bonds, mentorship and sense of purpose he was given by Vinson & Elkins litigators. “Getting the opportunity to watch all of my mentors and other people I worked with in different hearings or trials or, honestly, just on a phone call with a client, has been invaluable,” he says. “And I have been so fortunate that I have had really incredible lawyers come to work for us over the years. We have an incredible team.” As the Vinson & Elkins team channels that enthusiasm into growth and expansion in the coming decade, one of its most rewarding opportunities may be in its historic sweet spot of litigation.

“One of the things we’ve realized is that in litigation, when our perception in the market is compared to reality, the reality is far higher,” he says. “There are some firms where the reality is not as high as the perception. That’s on us, but it’s a tremendous opportunity that we have.” Vinson & Elkins has a well-established footprint in energy, but also handles a large number of arbitrations and trials in other industries. Currently, Holmes and his team are representing The Coca-Cola Company in a $100M-plus tortious interference matter. “What I’m looking forward to is making sure that we get the credit for that,” Holmes adds. “It’s not just that we’ve handled them; we’ve been blessed to have this really – knock on wood – amazing run of victories.” While the firm is pleased with its accomplishments in Texas, where it sees additional growth opportunities, “I think we’ll also be focused on New York, the West Coast, D.C. and London,” Holmes says. No matter the locale, Holmes is well aware that the firm’s edge rests in collaboration and respect for the lessons passed down since the firm was established more than 100 years ago. That’s probably why when Holmes asked Reasoner to help him out on the Energy Transfer case in idyllic Georgetown, Del.’s historic courthouse, he was on the first plane. “We had a pretrial brief due on Sunday for a trial that started Monday,” Holmes says. “And Harry in his 50 some odd year of law practice was up at 3 a.m. going through a page flip with the associates.” “We love what we do and we like working together as a team,” says Holmes.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

239

500

Brian Stekloff WILKINSON STEKLOFF (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

240

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

BRIAN STEKLOFF BRIAN STEKLOFF IS PASSIONATE ABOUT

creating innovative approaches to trial practice. Just 45 years old, he’s already tried over 30 cases and has a good sense of what works and what doesn’t in the courtroom. That’s part of why he co-founded Wilkinson Stekloff, in 2016. His goal was to develop a unique business model optimized for high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation while developing the next generation of trial lawyers in a democratic, inclusive boutique environment. By any measure, the firm has been a success so far — based in D.C., Wilkinson Stekloff represents large corporations in major trials and litigations all across the country, in both state and federal court, and runs a thriving pro bono trial practice in which numerous associates have taken lead trial roles. “One of the advantages of our firm,” says Stekloff, “is that we don’t have a lot of bureaucracy, so we are always open to different subject areas.” Those subject areas span a wide variety of cases involving product liability, class actions, antitrust and sports. Among other matters, Brian is currently representing the NFL in an antitrust litigation and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals in a criminal antitrust case, and is serving as national trial counsel for Monsanto in ongoing mass tort litigation involving its popular herbicide Roundup. Stekloff says he first fell in love with law through “To Kill a Mockingbird,” but realized it could be his career when he enrolled in a criminal justice clinic and represented indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors during his time at Georgetown University. After clerking for two federal judges and working as an associate at a large international law firm, he then became an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Florida. There, Stekloff chaired or co-chaired 22 felony jury trials and obtained full acquittals in nearly one-third of them, which, notably, is at least double the national average. Today, he serves on the Criminal Justice Act Panel for the District of Maryland. He is actively involved with the panel, and had a trial in July 2021 in which two Wilkinson Stekloff associates were able to play prominent roles, including giving the opening statement and closing argument. Since returning to private practice, Brian has gone on to defend both individuals and corporations in

PHOTO BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN

BY ALISON PREECE criminal and civil cases. He has represented Fortune 500 companies including FedEx Ground, Pfizer, Medtronic, Monsanto, Bayer and more. He is known for getting results. Two of his most significant victories as a first-chair trial lawyer are the first-ever defense verdict for Monsanto in the Roundup litigation, which he secured just weeks ago, and the first jury verdict for Bayer in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in a mass tort proceeding involving Xarelto. With such a prolific trial career, it’s no wonder he has been nationally ranked by Chambers & Partners and recognized as one of Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Part of Wilkinson Stekloff’s success is the firm’s commitment to diversity. Stekloff explains: “Focusing on diversity is really important but unfortunately rare in the market. It’s not only important within the firm, but also in terms of winning cases. You can’t figure out how to win over a diverse group of jurors if you only have your perspective, no matter what your background is.” Those perspectives are included in a firm with nearly 60 percent women attorneys, and one that prioritizes hearing from all of its attorneys in a dedicated group environment free from the pressures and constraints of hourly billing. That philosophy of democratization has formed the basis for an incredibly successful firm, and a career full of wins for Stekloff. Lawdragon: Tell me about the process of starting your own firm. What led to that decision? Brian Stekloff: We started our firm in February of 2016, so we recently reached our five-year anniversary. I had worked with Beth Wilkinson, who was one of the other founding partners, on and off since 2003, and for a while we had talked about opening our own firm. We really just wanted to take some of the things that we enjoyed from Big Law, but then put them in a smaller, boutique environment where we were focusing on trial practice and where we could recruit and train the next generation of trial lawyers. Beth was a prominent trial lawyer at Latham with me many years ago, when I was first starting out. I walked into her office, which is not like me because I am somewhat introverted, actually, and I said, “I’m Brian, I know you’re a trial lawyer, and I want to be a trial lawyer. I want to be a public defender. Can I get on one of your cases?” And she gave me a shot

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

241

500 242

Philip Harnett Corboy Jr.

Cari Dawson

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

Kelley Cornish

Karin A. DeMasi

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Eric R.I. Cottle

Michael Demetrio

K&L GATES NEW YORK

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Trey Cox

Kelly Dermody

GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Ben Crump

Abigail Dillen

BEN CRUMP LAW TALLAHASSEE

EARTHJUSTICE SAN FRANCISCO

Stephen D’Amore

Michael Dolce

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Frank Darras

Diane Doolittle

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

Susan Davies

William Dougherty

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Dedra Davis

Joseph Drayton

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

COOLEY NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

and I ended up doing all my work at Latham with Beth. She became my mentor from that moment. LD: Why did you choose her? BS: You could just tell she was a dynamic lawyer who had incredible judgment. I knew she had also done criminal work as a prosecutor for many years, and that type of work appealed to me. Even though I knew I wanted to be on the public defender side, and she was a prosecutor, the combination was just a great opportunity within the office. And it obviously all worked out. Here we are 18 years later, and we are in practice together. LD: That’s really cool. And I’ve got to say, I like that you had this female partner who was your mentor. I love that female lawyers are able to become mentors now. BS: Yeah, I’m really happy about that. It actually is also, I should say, one of the reasons we started our own firm — to highlight the importance of diversity in a successful trial practice. Our firm was originally named Wilkinson, Walsh and Eskovitz. The Walsh was Alex Walsh, and she’s now gone onto the plaintiff side and built her own boutique. But at the time, we had two women as the first two named partners, and I was so proud of that. LD: Good for you. Do you focus on that when you are hiring? BS: Yes, we are very focused on that in our hiring. We don’t set numeric goals or anything like that, but our hiring structure ensures that we’re taking on diverse candidates. We require every candidate to meet with a broad cross-section of the firm, which means that each candidate will meet with the majority of the partnership and at least 10 people overall. LD: Oh, that’s great, definitely more than average. BS: Right. And in our firm that means that they’re seeing people from many different backgrounds, because we are a majority-female legal team and we also have multiple attorneys of color, LGBTQ+ attorneys and other diverse attorneys. And all of those folks’ perspectives are factored into our hiring decisions. And we make sure that our whole staff is diverse as well, not just our attorneys — that goal extends to our IT staff, legal support and legal assistants too. LD: Oh, that’s good to know. I have also heard that clients are getting more and more focused on that, too. They want their legal team to be diverse.

BS: Yeah, I mean they should, and they do. Their attorneys will be appearing in front of jury pools that represent all of America and it’s important that their lawyers reflect that. I think we are well positioned for that, and we take it very seriously. LD: That’s wonderful. Then, one interesting thing about your firm is that you operate on a flat-fee structure. Tell me about that. BS: Yeah, we are creative and flexible depending on the matter and where we are coming in on the matter. But we typically charge either by the phase of litigation that we are involved in or by month, depending on what stage the litigation is in. So we don’t bill hours. LD: Oh, that’s so different. BS: It is. We’ve found that that structure has been very advantageous, both for our clients and for us. For our clients, it provides them with certainty, and they know that they are going to get a lot of our resources on every one of their matters. Then, I think for our attorneys it provides a lot of advantages as well, because there is less of a focus on how much time it takes to do work and more on doing great work. There’s one other benefit from our structure. Our clients are going to pay the same fee for a month regardless of how many attorneys are on the matter. That means we can incorporate our team members into all of the significant events, whether it is a court hearing, a deposition, or a strategy meeting with the client. Because of that, I think we are able to train our attorneys more holistically, and our clients benefit from a team that is not siloed into different areas of the case. LD: That makes so much sense. What a smart structure. And is your firm still growing, or do you like the size you are at right now? BS: I would say we’re slightly growing. Right now we are at about 35 to 40 attorneys. I think at our peak we were at around 45. So we are busy, and especially when the pandemic ends and trials really start again, we expect to be very busy. Even though we’re growing slightly, at the same time we really want to maintain our culture. We have no plans of trying to become a firm with 100 attorneys, for example, but we are always looking for diverse attorneys looking to be trained to become trial lawyers. LD: That’s great. Speaking of younger lawyers, when did the idea of being a lawyer first come to you?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

243

500 244

Daniel Drosman

Scott Edelman

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

MILBANK NEW YORK

Brian T. Dunn

Michael Elkin

T HE COCHRAN LAW FIRM LOS ANGELES

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Karen L. Dunn

Tara D. Elliott

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kendall Dunson

David Elsberg

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Linda Marie Dunson

Adam O. Emmerich

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Daralyn Durie

Miguel Estrada

DURIE TANGRI SAN FRANCISCO

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brian Duwe

Karen E. Evans

SKADDEN CHICAGO

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karen Dyer

Greg Ezring

CADWALADER NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Sarah K. Eddy

Eric Fastiff

WACHTELL NEW YORK

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

BS: I actually thought I would be a doctor when I was first in college. I started in biology, but then shifted to political science and to law school. In law school I started to really like litigation-related subject matters. I liked civil procedure; I liked evidence. And then in my third year I was part of something at Georgetown called the Criminal Justice Clinic, where you are the lawyer for defendants who are charged with misdemeanors in D.C. Superior Court. And so I was in court in those cases and just fell in love with it. The public defender aspect of it, but then also the trial, courtroom litigation aspect of it. I think that was the cherry on top, whatever analogy you want to use, for my plans. And then it played out where I clerked for two district court judges for a couple of years. LD: How was your experience clerking? BS: My judges were both amazing. To me, they epitomized what every litigant should expect from a judge: hard-working, prepared, patient and fair. Of course, they are both also brilliant. And I loved trials and saw several trials while I was clerking. After that, I went to Latham, and that is where I met Beth Wilkinson, who, as I said, is my other founding partner. Latham is a great law firm, but also I started to realize that I could just get lost as a litigator, and I wanted to try to control my own destiny. LD: That’s wonderful. Then, in terms of your trials more specifically, I wanted to talk about the Monsanto case you are involved in litigating, which involves claims that those who use Roundup weed killer were at risk for developing certain types of cancer. It must be under intense public scrutiny. Can you explain the case a bit? How did you first come to take the case on, and what is significant about it? BS: So, when Bayer acquired Monsanto, they became responsible for overseeing the Monsanto litigation. I had done some work for Bayer in the past, so that’s when I came in. I’ve now tried two of these cases to verdict – the first federal court trial, in front of Judge Vince Chhabria, and a state court trial involving a child plaintiff. We lost the first case after the jury was out for approximately a week on the issue of causation. I think we litigated a really strong case, but we had a challenge with our jury because there was a lot of prejudice against Monsanto and pesticides and chemicals generally, particularly in the San Francisco Bay area. After the trial, we were able to convince Judge Chhabria to reduce the damages, and the

case is still on appeal. Our damages from the jury were significantly lower than in the other cases Monsanto had against them. On a happier note, we recently won a complete defense verdict in state court in Los Angeles. It was the first jury verdict for Monsanto in a Roundup case. It was really thrilling to get a second crack at the subject matter, and I’m proud that we were able to deliver a great and long-awaited result for our client. It was a hard case – the plaintiff was a child with cancer, difficult family circumstances, very sympathetic – but the jury ultimately understood that Roundup had nothing to do with it. LD: That’s interesting. So, there have been some huge verdicts against Monsanto, up to over $2B. How were you able to turn the tide? BS: The biggest thing was being able to be self-critical and identify and then address our shortcomings. We felt really strong about the way we had tried the first federal case and it was somewhat tempting to approach the second case the same way and prove we had the right approach. And we did carry some things forward; for example, in both cases, we succeeded in persuading the judge to reverse bifurcate the case so the jury could focus on causation and the scientific evidence up front. But ultimately, success as a trial lawyer is about being adaptable and not falling in love with your case or your own ideas. We looked carefully at the record in the second case to figure out the best approach to those facts. Ultimately, we focused pretty closely on the issue of exposure – how much Roundup the plaintiff had actually been exposed to. That was really not something we discussed in the first trial, but it seemed like the right approach on the facts of the second case, and the jury apparently agreed. I was proud of our team for having the confidence to pivot to a different strategy. LD: That makes a lot of sense. Now, going back a bit, I wanted to ask about your time as a public defender. It just seems like such an excellent training ground for anyone who wants to be a litigator. Were there any lessons from that time that you still bring with you in your practice today? BS: Absolutely, a couple of them. My first lesson is something like the Malcolm Gladwell 10,000-hour mastery theory. I don’t know that I have 10,000 hours, but I do think one of the most helpful things for becoming a trial lawyer was just getting practice standing up in front of a jury, doing an opening,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

245

500 246

Mark Ferguson

Jodi Flowers

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Mark Filip

Kobie Flowers

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Toria J. Finch

David Flugman

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Steven Fineman

William V. Fogg

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Julie Fink

Katherine B. Forrest

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Alice Fisher

Mary Beth Forshaw

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Ora Fisher

Ramona Franklin

LATHAM MENLO PARK, CALIF.

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

Fidelma Fitzpatrick

Andy Freeman

MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE, R.I.

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Wendy Fleishman

Agnieszka Fryszman

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

doing cross-examination and closing. The whole time I was making mistakes and then learning from them. And public defenders, unlike a lot of prosecutors, conduct a lot of cross-examinations, which I think has really paid off for me in private practice where strong cross-examination skills are a necessity. Similarly, I would say that as a trial lawyer you really have to find your own style. I can watch amazing trial lawyers, but it doesn’t mean I can replicate their style or the way that they present things in front of the jury. I was able to pick up different techniques from different lawyers I watched so I could form my own style. The other thing I learned was that you have to earn credibility from the jury. As a public defender, your adversary is often the United States government, who has automatic credibility. So I think I learned that you have to take advantage of every step of the trial to build up that credibility, so that by closing you’ve convinced them. You can’t just walk in and expect that a jury is going to believe you, so you have to tell them what you are going to do at the beginning of the trial and do exactly what you told them. LD: Interesting. So, would you say your style as a litigator is that you are a straight shooter? BS: Yeah, I would say that I’m a straight shooter and I don’t try to fight everything. I think one of the biggest lessons I learned is that you need to fight the things that matter. Getting in a tit for tat over every issue is not going to be persuasive to the jury. To me, in order to be persuasive, you have to be honest and avoid fights over little things that should not impact the jury’s decision. Also, I’d say you have to edit. I think some lawyers just want to overwhelm the jury with everything they think is important, but juries generally do not remember the vast majority of what happens at a trial. So, you have to focus on the core themes, the core evidence and repeat it in different ways so that the jury understands it and finds it persuasive. That’s what will ultimately win the case. LD: That’s so helpful. Tell me more about what you enjoy about this practice? BS: I love the work and collaboration. I think that one of the great things about our firm is that we have a culture of brainstorming. I want to hear from every attorney on my teams, from the first-year associate

to the partners. We have diverse teams for this exact reason: You want a diverse perspective on issues that are going to be presented to a jury. I like when people challenge me and come up with different themes, or different ideas about a case. I think it’s so important to create a culture of teamwork where people really feel invested in the case, and invested in figuring out the best presentation so that there is a sense of camaraderie. LD: And I imagine having the flat fee structure probably promotes camaraderie, right? The attorneys aren’t competing against each other for billed hours. BS: Exactly. We literally do not track our hours. I think it takes away competition that comes up with billable hours. It also just allows us to have a lot of team-oriented strategies. I also think that billable hours can create a lot of tension with clients. But with us, once they agree on the fee, as long as we are getting the work done and doing it well, the client is not worried about how we are spending our time. And so, we are allowed to have that culture of integrating everyone into the whole case, brainstorming and coming together and helping train people. I think it helps lead to our success because the full team understands everything that is happening in the case, and therefore is more invested in being creative and coming up with the right strategy. LD: I imagine it would be such a great space for young associates, then, too, because they are getting a higher level of experience. It sounds like that would create a very collaborative, less hierarchical environment. BS: That is exactly right. You took the words out of my mouth: We are not hierarchical. I am interacting with every associate on every one of my teams on a regular basis. At big firms, the junior associates in particular, they are so far down that ladder, they feel very siloed. They only know their little part of the case; they don’t understand how it fi ts into the big picture. And they are never interacting, or rarely interacting, with the partners, so they are not learning as much because they are not hearing from him or her to understand his or her thinking or strategy. We’ve been able to break down those barriers and it’s been fantastic. I am so proud of what we’ve achieved in just five and a half years.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

247

500

Erica Hughes HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT (HOUSTON)

248

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ERICA HUGHES JUDGE ERICA HUGHES COMES FROM A PROUD

military family with a tradition of service. But although she knew from a young age she wanted to be a lawyer, she initially studied engineering and intellectual property. The sciences came easily to her, and she realized the impact she could make as an African American woman helping others protect their creations. However, an internship with state Senator Royce West focused her on the help she could give to minority communities in more direct ways – getting out the vote and addressing disparities in housing and food. Hughes changed course and dedicated her law practice to helping individuals achieve justice and fair treatment. Practicing law in Houston for more than a decade, she couldn’t help but observe how not everyone was treated the same when they went to court, often because of their race or ethnicity.

Not one to sit on the sidelines when there is work to be done, Hughes ran for Criminal Court at Law #3, a misdemeanor court, where she presides and helps those before her change their behavior before they progress to more serious charges. The four years she served as an active JAG ofﬁcer and membership in the Texas National Guard make her work with the Veteran’s Court a point of particular pride. Lawdragon: Tell me about your journey to becoming a lawyer – what inspired you? Erica Hughes: I became a lawyer because I wanted to help people, speciﬁcally my community. I have an engineering background and held several internships while at Prairie View A&M, including one focused on intellectual property. There were not enough minorities in the intellectual property and patent division for some companies that I worked for. And so my initial idea was to create some diversity and to help individuals who have ideas, those who were maybe not able to get them in front of someone who could assist them. LD: Great insight. Can you tell me about going to law school at Thurgood Marshall and your career after you graduated, before you ran for judge? EH: When I got in law school, I interned and worked for State Farm and their patent and intellectual property division in Bloomington, Ill. After that, I did a rotation in Austin and then Dallas. My goal was to go to work for State Farm after law school and to do intellectual property law.

PHOTO BY FELIX SANCHEZ

BY KATRINA DEWEY In Dallas in 2003, I had the opportunity to be in a summer program with state Senator Royce West. He still holds office. He’s the first African American Senator in Texas, and he’s still in that seat. Long story short, I worked with him on a summer initiative to get out the vote in minority communities. I also got to work addressing some disparities as far as housing and food issues for people who were my age and younger than me. That gave me a desire to help more than just being in an office. I kind of wanted to be on the ground after I had the opportunity to help. And so, my trajectory changed after that. I did everything right after law school. My main income at first was doing fee attorney work and closings on property. I also was serving my community in the areas of housing initiatives, food programs and education in minority communities by assisting with the grant processes and getting money for those efforts. I started to build my practice as it relates to criminal and personal injury as well. That is how I continued to pay the bills and feed the family. And that is how I was able to fund my helping of hands. I also had the opportunity to serve in the military as a JAG officer. LD: Tell me about that experience. EH: I was commissioned in 2015, wanting to serve in a greater way. I felt like it would be better to reach out and to be able to assist the United States on a grander scheme so I went and served in the military. LD: You have such a strong service ethic. Did you grow up in a military family? EH: My dad actually served in Vietnam, but by the time I was born, he had honorably discharged. They were stationed in Alaska and moved to Dallas, and that’s where I was born and raised. So, my sibling got the benefit of the travel and being stationed in different places. I’ve lived in Dallas my entire life. My dad after military service worked at the post office and retired from there. LD: What inspired you to run for the bench? EH: From 2006 to 2018, I had practiced here in Houston and saw discrepancies in the way attorneys were treated and the outcomes of cases for defendants. There were discrepancies in the way defendants were

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

249

500 250

Vijaya Gadde

Robert Giuffra

TWITTER SAN FRANCISCO

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Sergio Galvis

John Gleeson

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Merrick Garland

Asheesh Goel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

James Garner

Louis Goldberg

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Gregory Garre

David Goldschmidt

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Faith Gay

Sandra Goldstein

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Paul Geller

Thomas Goldstein

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.

GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL BETHESDA, MD.

Eric George

Elaine Golin

BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Adam Gerchen

Andrew G. Gordon

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

treated. The main thing that made me throw my hat in the race was the bail reform lawsuit that was initiated, O’Donnell v. Harris County. I’ve always felt like criminal justice reform was something that our country could do better. And the criminal justice system affects the minority community the most. So, my heart just kind of went out for that cause. And I thought, “Man, they’re spending a lot of money on something to me that seemed simple as it relates to low level misdemeanor offenses.” I threw my hat in the race specifically because of criminal justice reform. I saw an opportunity here in Harris County to change the narrative in a large county. I thought if people saw that Harris County could do it, then definitely they could do it elsewhere. I chose the misdemeanor bench specifically because it’s where low-level offenders come. I wanted to change the narrative for the criminal justice system and also help low-level offenders. Maybe, they haven’t gone off the deep end; they just need some help to try to turn their situation around, and get their life back on track to be a productive citizen. I also knew they had the Harris County misdemeanor Veteran’s Court, which I preside over for all 16 courts. I felt like there was a special calling there, too, because I had served in the military. LD: Tell me about that court please. EH: We have the second-biggest population of military veterans in Texas, behind California. The felony court for veterans started in 2010, and the misdemeanor courts were started seven years after. It was just getting started and didn’t really have the energy or the funding behind it. My goal was to put it on the same trend line as the felony court and make it as good as that program. One of my favorite parts of the job is to be able to do that docket. LD: How’s it going? And how does it work? EH: It’s going great. I love it. Oftentimes, these people suffer from mental illness, PTSD or traumatic brain injuries and medicate with drugs or alcohol. Then, unfortunately, they commit some type of criminal act. They can qualify for veterans court if they have served in the military or are currently serving. What that does is give them resources from the VA and other military partners that we partner with for providing benefits. We also line them up with a treatment program and mentors, and maybe put them not back in the military atmosphere but with a structure to help them become productive citizens. We just had a report

done that showed 90 percent of our veterans have completed the program successfully. And as it relates to recidivism, they’re not repeat offenders. They’ve gotten jobs and they’re doing well for themselves after completing the program. LD: Congratulations. Do you have specific cases or people that come to mind from either the military division or regular misdemeanor that really speak to you in terms of why you wanted to be on the bench? EH: Definitely. Of course, the goal is to get them to come through the program and graduate. We do an entire ceremony. Sometimes you’re sad to see them go because you’ve seen them from the beginning, and now they’re here, and you’ve got to remember what they went through – almost like your kid growing up. So yes, there are definitely people, names I can recall, specific cases that stand out, and folks that are graduating that I hate to see go, but I’m happy. This is what we signed them up for, to graduate this program. LD: It must be like you see them at this crossroads where things could get worse, or they could get better. And to feel like what you’re doing on the bench has led to the better pathway. EH: Yes, for their life. They spent maybe a year to two years with me, but the rest of their life is set in a positive direction when they graduate. Sometimes they come back and mentor other veterans in the program, so I’ll still get to see them. And to continue to see them do so well with their family lives, with their jobs. Everything is going well. Not that they don’t have problems, but they have beat their addiction, and they continue to work on their addiction every day. And they’re being a positive influence in their community. It’s definitely rewarding. LD: What do you consider the most meaningful part of being a judge? EH: The most meaningful part is that you see an individual’s life turned around. Maybe not because of you as the judge, but from some things that you have shown them or given them the opportunity to have – to offer individuals these resources that maybe no one gave them before, or maybe no one thought that they deserved. Some people just need resources or an opportunity to do the right thing. For example, I can give a 17-year-old kid an HCC, Houston Community College, booklet and say, “You deserve this option. Maybe you can go to college.” I make people bring their report cards. It’s about providing resources to give those folks new opportunities.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

251

500 252

Neil Gorsuch

Udi Grofman

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Ilene Knable Gotts

Nicholas Groombridge

WACHTELL NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Elizabeth Graham

Benjamin Gruenstein

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Nicholas Gravante

Vanita Gupta

CADWALADER NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Angela Graves-Harrington

Melinda Haag

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

PAUL WEISS SAN FRANCISCO

Salvatore Graziano

Richard Hall

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Lori Chambers Gray

Caitlin Halligan

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Mark I. Greene

Claudia Hammerman

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Sean Grimsley

Erica Harris

BARTLIT BECK DENVER

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Geoffrey Harrison

Damaris Hernández

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Natasha Harrison

Jennifer Hobbs

PALLAS PARTNERS LONDON

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Stephen Hasegawa

Tricia “CK” Hoffler

PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO

THE CK HOFFLER LAW FIRM ATLANTA

Michael Hausfeld

Mary Beth Hogan

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Richard Hays

Shawn Holley

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

KINSELLA WEITZMAN SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

Robert Hays

Ellen Holloman

KING & SPALDING ATLANTA

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Sean Hecker

Hillary Holmes

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

GIBSON DUNN HOUSTON

Dara Hegar

Patricia Brown Holmes

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

Brian Hermann

Deneen Howell

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

253

500

Peter Prieto PODHURST ORSECK (MIAMI)

254

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PETER PRIETO PETER PRIETO HAS ALWAYS HAD A BROAD-

spectrum view of the legal profession. His focus for the last 30 years has been complex commercial litigation, and he’s fascinated by and dedicated to all aspects of the legal profession – the thornier and more arcane the problem, the better. Meticulous and driven by an endless hunger for problem-solving and advocacy, Prieto’s professional journey has spanned from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, to Washington, D.C., to large law firms, as well as boutique firms like his current firm, Podhurst Orseck, where he is a partner and represents both plaintiffs and defendants. His recent cases cover an array of matters, from multi-district litigation proceedings representing plaintiffs, to defending law and accounting firms from malpractice claims.

In addition to his private practice work, Prieto recently served on the ABA’s Standing Committee in the federal judiciary, where he extensively vetted the qualiﬁcations of federal judge nominees. He also spent eight years as a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission for the 3rd District Court of Appeals and served on Florida’s Commission on Ethics. Prieto’s litigation work has earned him wide-reaching recognition. Admitted to the Florida Bar in 1985, Prieto is a member of multiple other Bars including the Cuban-American Bar Association, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. Prieto is a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law where he served on the Law Review, and is in the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. A native of Cuba, Prieto moved to the United States with his parents when he was seven years old. Though neither of his parents completed high school, they were determined that Prieto receive a higher education. He remembers that his parents always told him that the most important thing you can give a person is an education, because, they believed, “Education is the only thing nobody can take away from you. They can take your house, they can take your money, but they can never take an education away from you.” That early advice has served Prieto well. Even after more than 30 years in the legal profession, he continues to strive for success in every aspect of the law he tackles, eager and curious to learn more from each new case he tries.

PHOTO BY JOSH RITCHIE

BY ALISON PREECE Lawdragon: I always think it’s interesting when I see someone with a mix of plaintiff and defense work. How did that develop in your career? Peter Prieto: Well, right now I do mostly plaintiffs’ work, but that wasn’t always the case. I’d say my career has basically been divided into three phases, from private, to government, then back to private. I started at Holland & Knight, which is a large, national law firm. After two years there I went into the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, where I spent about eight years. And then I spent one year in Washington, investigating Ron Brown, who was then the Secretary of Commerce under Bill Clinton. After a year of that, Secretary Brown’s plane crashed over Bosnia, he perished and that investigation came to a screeching halt. So, then I went back to my old firm, Holland & Knight, and I spent about 13 years there doing almost exclusively defense work. While I was there, I was the managing partner for the Miami office and then I became the head of litigation for the entire firm. Then in early 2010 I joined Podhurst Orseck. The firm focuses on plaintiffs’ work and is roughly evenly divided into two categories: commercial litigation, including class actions, and personal injury work, including aviation, which the firm has done for half a century now. So that plaintiffs’ work takes up most of my time. When I do defense work, I primarily focus on defending law firms and accounting firms in malpractice cases. That concentration developed out of the blue. I got a call from a large law firm once to represent them, and from that I was recommended to represent an accounting firm. And that’s sort of how I developed that niche practice at my firm. Again, that defense work is maybe 30 percent of my practice currently, but it’s a focus that I enjoy. Once, somebody asked me, “Why do you still do defense work even though you’re primarily a plaintiffs’ lawyer?” My answer was that I think it makes me a better lawyer. I’m able to understand the other side. When I’m a plaintiffs’ lawyer, I understand how the defense works and when I’m a defense lawyer, I understand how the plaintiffs work. LD: That makes so much sense. Do you prefer one to the other?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

255

500

ONCE, SOMEBODY ASKED ME, “WHY DO YOU STILL DO DEFENSE WORK EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE PRIMARILY A PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYER?” MY ANSWER WAS THAT I THINK IT MAKES ME A BETTER LAWYER. I’M ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE. PP: That’s a tough question. I enjoy both, honestly – they have such different facets. I think when you work for a good corporate client, which is usually on the defense side, you’re engaging with a client that is sophisticated and understands the issues. It’s interesting work, even if it can be more demanding.

PP: It was fascinating, especially because it started as an arrest of two defendants, and we eventually developed a pretty signiﬁcant case involving seven defendants.

But I also really like representing plaintiffs because there’s a more personal satisfaction in representing a human being, or a family. It’s more satisfying on a personal level.

PP: I think the biggest highlight, so far, might actually be the case that I’m currently working on, which is the Takata Airbags multi-district litigation.

LD: That makes sense. As you said, you’ve had such a variety of work in different types of cases so this might be a tough question, but are there one or two cases that stand out as a career highlight for you? PP: Well, one is from when I was a prosecutor. I prosecuted an organized ring of credit card counterfeiters from Hong Kong. They would manufacture counterfeit credit cards in Macau, then ship them to the States and several Hong Kong nationals would use them all over the country to buy high-ticket items, including dozens of Rolex watches. A Secret Service agent stumbled upon two of them in a very high-end mall in South Florida. He arrested them at the mall, which led to us investigating that ring, and eventually we indicted seven individuals under RICO, which is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We even extradited a defendant from Thailand. They all pled guilty and most of them ended up with significant sentences. LD: Wow. PP: The rewarding part of that case was the amount of investigative work involved, including 24-hour surveillance of some of the defendants and finding fingerprints on receipts, credit cards and licenses, and tying those fingerprints to the defendants. It was really a worldwide ring that was focused on using counterfeit credit cards here in the United States. LD: Oh, that’s so interesting. I could see a really good crime movie out of that.

256

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: That must have been a lot of fun. What about private practice – is there a case that stands out?

I was appointed to be the chair lead counsel for the plaintiffs by Federal District Judge Federico Moreno. The case involves the largest automotive recall in U.S. history – tens of millions of cars. So far, we’ve settled with seven automakers, totaling $1.5B. LD: Wow. So, obviously this is a major public safety issue. You’re literally saving lives with this litigation. What part of the case for you is the most interesting? PP: Well, the case is a multi-district litigation. In a multidistrict litigation, where you’re assembling a large number of cases before one judge, the judge makes the appointment on the plaintiffs’ side. So, from a personal perspective, one of the challenging things as the lead counsel for the plaintiffs is dealing with a group of lawyers who are not part of your firm. Some of them you’ve only just met. You have to ensure that all of the lawyers are working in unison, which can sometimes be challenging given the different personalities. And then the second interesting part is how sophisticated the case is. So, Takata supplied an airbag and inflator to the automakers, but there was a defect in the inflator. When the airbag was activated, the inflator would explode, hitting vehicle drivers or passengers with fragments of metal in the neck, the face, the body. That defect has caused around 21 deaths and hundreds of injuries. But it was a challenging matter because Takata pled guilty, and all the automakers were claiming, and continue to claim, that they weren’t at fault because Takata had lied to them about the performance of the airbags.

500

Then, Takata filed for bankruptcy. So, we had to defend our case in bankruptcy court because usually bankruptcy courts have the ability to stay civil litigation. LD: Right. PP: So, we were concerned that the bankruptcy court would stay our cases, and not permit them to move forward. There were just a lot of issues and moving parts, both on a professional level and on a personal level. It’s been a very interesting ride. LD: Do you have lessons or takeaways from your time as a federal prosecutor, perhaps that you’re still using in your practice today? PP: I’d say there are two really important things I learned by being a federal prosecutor. The first is, do the right thing. The second one is, only focus on what’s important. So, diving into that first point – when you’re a prosecutor, if you’re in front of a judge and jury and you make a mistake, you own up to it. You gain so much credibility that way, and you should just do the right thing. Well, and aside from the personal aspect, when you’re a federal prosecutor representing the government, the judge and jury simply expect you to do the right thing. Judges will come down on you really, really hard if you are there representing the people of the United States and you do something that’s deceitful or you don’t speak plainly and truthfully. One example I have of that lesson was actually in private practice. After I left the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I was a young partner in a large law firm litigating a pretty significant case where doctors were suing a hospital system. And the opposing lawyer, a wellknown lawyer, mistakenly sent me a memo that was meant for his clients discussing his plan and strategy for the case LD: Oh, my gosh. PP: I know. But when I saw what it was, I didn’t read it and I closed it up. I put it in the envelope, called the lawyer and I said, “Listen, my friend, you made a mistake here. You sent me this memo and I’m sending it back to you.”

And then the second lesson, the one about focusing on what’s important, comes from my transition from private practice to being a federal prosecutor. In federal criminal law, there are no depositions or interrogatories. You focus only on the important evidence in the case. That’s it. In civil litigation you get millions of pages of documents, and only maybe 20 to 50 of those documents, are really what’s going to make the case for you. Nevertheless, civil lawyers will fight over the most unimportant things. I think being a prosecutor was an important training ground for me. When junior lawyers ask me if they should go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I tell them unequivocally that they absolutely should. LD: I noticed, too, that you recently served on the ABA’s Standing Committee on the federal judiciary. There’s been so much talk in recent years of packing, so to speak, the federal courts with judges that are on one side of the political spectrum and might tip the scales of justice in unfair ways. Do you think there’s any merit to that concern? PP: So, the ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary, they’ve been vetting all the federal judges since Eisenhower was president. More than half a century. But the committee, based on my experience, doesn’t look at politics at all. The focus of the committee is on professional competence, temperament and integrity. Those essentially are the factors they consider. It’s their mantra. And you’re right, they have been criticized in the past by both parties for that claim of bias in favor of one party or the other. But, like I said, the Committee, based on what I experienced as a member, is apolitical. It only looks at those three things. So, does each party try to put as many nominees on the courts as possible? Absolutely. But that’s been happening since the founding of our country. The famous case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review, was about President Adams trying to pack the federal judiciary with Federalist judges as he was about to leave office.

LD: Wow. Good for you.

Now, in some instances, the President has nominated someone even though the ABA has deemed them unqualiﬁed.

PP: The opposing lawyer was grateful. In fact, he even told the judge presiding over the case that I had done the right thing and returned the document. So, that’s the ﬁrst thing I learned, that if you do the right thing, everything takes care of itself.

PP: I think it happened a few times under President Trump. Although there was one nominee that the ABA rated as unqualiﬁed who was not conﬁrmed

LD: Did that happen with President Trump, an outsized amount? I have to ask.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

257

500 258

Heidi Hubbard

Matthew J. Jacobs

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

VINSON & ELKINS SAN FRANCISCO

Erica Hughes

Jameel Jaffer

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK

Hamish Hume

Dani James

BOIES SCHILLER HOUSTON

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

James Hurst

Jaren Janghorbani

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Melissa Hutson

Rachel Jensen

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Sherrilyn Ifill

Katya Jestin

NAACP-LDF NEW YORK

JENNER & BLOCK NEW YORK

Phil Iovieno

Emily D. Johnson

CADWALADER NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

William Isaacson

Jeh Charles Johnson

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Maria T. Jackson

Michele D. Johnson

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

LATHAM COSTA MESA, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I THINK BEING A PROSECUTOR WAS AN IMPORTANT TRAINING GROUND FOR ME. WHEN JUNIOR LAWYERS ASK ME IF THEY SHOULD GO TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, I TELL THEM UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD. because he performed so poorly at his conﬁrmation hearing. I mean, he was asked basic questions about his experience and procedure, and he didn’t have the right answers. From what I remember, he had never taken a deposition or knew what a motion in limine was. LD: You’ve had such an outstanding career both in public service and private practice. Do you have any advice for new or younger lawyers? PP: It may sound trite, but you need to work hard, enjoy the job you have, and do the best you can. On top of that, you need to learn about your profession. Learn about the lawyers who are involved in it. Learn about the judges. I love reading biographies on judges and lawyers who enjoy and have been successful in the profession. Then, when you’re working, use every case as a building block because you never know where it could lead. Almost every single lawyer who has succeeded in one practice or another fell upon it by chance. Some client might call him out of the blue, and they learn about that practice area or they work with an older lawyer and that older lawyer teaches them about a certain practice area. So, my advice is to always build upon everything you do because you never know when a case might lead you to a particular practice or what you’re really skilled at doing. My third piece of advice is to treat all people decently, whether they’re your opposing lawyer, the court’s staff, or an opposing client. I’ve gotten work from lawyers that I’ve had cases against because I was decent to them. LD: I love that. A lot of people can listen to that advice, and not just in law. So, you’ve had this incredible career, but tell me a bit about your early life and what brought you here. You’ve mentioned that your parents, who, like you, immigrated from Cuba, believed ﬁrmly in the power of

education to shape your future. Did that philosophy impact you? PP: Oh, absolutely. Education is so important, and I’ve really tried to stay true to that mindset in raising my own children, as well. I’d say my kids have gotten a better education than I did, and I’m proud of that. I have a 19-year old, who’s still in high school, my daughter is in undergrad at NYU, and my oldest son is a second-year law student at Miami Law. LD: Oh, cool! Following his dad’s footsteps. PP: You know, I’ve never encouraged my kids to be lawyers. They grew up with a lawyer as a father and they would hear stories about my cases and the judges and laywers involved. And my oldest son was always interested in the law and in the cases that I talked about. He’s going to be a good lawyer. My daughter would be too, but I haven’t really pushed it, and she doesn’t seem interested in the law. I just want her to find something she enjoys doing. That’s all that matters. LD: That’s fantastic. And then, one more, fun, final question. Do you have a favorite book or movie or television show about the law? PP: That’s a really good question. My favorite movie about the law is pretty easy for me: “The Verdict,’’ with Paul Newman, who’s my favorite actor of all time. That film has so many dramas within one movie. The downand-out lawyer facing this big firm with half a dozen lawyers representing the Archdiocese. The ethical issues where he doesn’t communicate an offer of settlement to his client’s family, which is an ethical violation. And then the dramatic ending. That’s definitely my favorite legal movie. As far as my favorite book, I’ve read so many judicial biographies it’s hard to chose. There’s a great biography of Justice Hugo Black, who was basically selfeducated. He was an amazing judge and man. Very inspiring person.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

259

Steve Molo MOLOLAMKEN (NEW YORK)

260

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

STEVE MOLO MANY OF THE INGREDIENTS THAT GO INTO

being a great trial lawyer – tenacity, intelligence, the talent for storytelling, the ability to shift gears in an instant after months of preparation – don’t necessarily guarantee success over the long haul in such a competitive profession. For Steven Molo, the traits that have proven just as important to his longevity – his decades of success in public and private practice across every type of complex case imaginable – are gratitude and optimism. These have supported his tireless devotion to his craft in court as well as his stewardship of a litigation boutique forged in the wake of the Great Recession. Firms built on both talent and nimbleness have an edge in times of crisis: Not surprisingly, MoloLamken has thrived in the pandemic, and even a people-person like Molo sees the silver linings of some of the changes brought to the practice of trial law over the past 20 months. Like many a perennial Lawdragon 500 member, Molo began his career as a prosecutor. He then practiced at Winston & Strawn and Shearman & Sterling before cofounding his own firm in 2009 with renowned appellate litigator Jeffrey Lamken. In the world of litigation boutiques, Molo feels blessed to have had a mentor like Stephen Susman, another Lawdragon Legend who passed away in July 2020 after a biking accident. Their last conversation focused on the wisdom of investing in the next generation of trial lawyers. Molo is confident that group will take the reins of a profession that better reflects the nation’s diversity. Lawdragon: What are you working on these days? Steven Molo: It’s the usual mix of complex business disputes, white collar criminal matters and a bit of IP. I’m about to start a jury trial representing a shareholder class in a securities fraud case before Judge Rakoff here in New York. I’m representing the Special Litigation Committee of Twitter’s board related to a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging a transaction the company did with Silver Lake and Elliot Management. Later in the year, I’m trying an accounting malpractice arbitration in Philadelphia and a trade secrets case in California. I was just retained to represent a non-U.S. defendant in a high-profile white collar criminal matter. All interesting work. I’m fortunate. LD: Where does the work come from? SM: All over, really. We get a lot of referrals from other lawyers. We get referrals from current and past clients.

PHOTO BY MICHAEL PARAS

BY JOHN RYAN People read about our work on the internet and contact us. Large and small firms bring us into matters when they are looking to add additional courtroom firepower, sometimes early and sometimes late in a case. We’re proud that more than half our cases involve another firm. We’re highly collaborative within the firm and that extends to working with others. Our juniors are taught: do excellent work, don’t worry about the credit, be commercial, be user friendly. LD: You mentioned you are about to start a jury trial. You’re known as a great cross-examiner. Is there a tip or two you are willing to share to help those trying to develop that skill? SM: Prepare and improvise. I enter every cross-examination having spent hours and hours researching everything inside and outside the record that can be used to elicit testimony that may help my case, undercut my opponent’s case, or undermine the witness’s credibility. I have both questions and a strategy planned in detail. But a cross-examination is not a performance, it’s a dynamic interaction between two people. Whether through fear, inexperience, or incompetence, many lawyers fail to truly listen to the witness’s answers and consider them in the context of the rest of the evidence. Sometimes a witness will serve up a nugget. You’ve got to be prepared to snatch it and run with it despite what’s in your notes. Or maybe you have to abandon a line of carefully crafted questions. Extraordinary preparation won’t make you a good cross-examiner if you lack situational awareness and the ability to react. Just as bad are lawyers who believe that the key is being quick on your feet and are unwilling to put in the time to prepare. LD: How has the pandemic impacted your firm? SM: We pushed through the initial uncertainty everyone faced, remained busy, and have gotten stronger. We’ve always staffed matters across all three of our offices. So, the transition to full-time remote work wasn’t particularly challenging. But our culture is critical to our success and that’s easier to tend to when you see your colleagues in person. We’ve grown the team with some fantastic people and that caused us to rethink and improve our onboarding and training. We’ve generally enhanced our internal communication and mentorship as well. As for the practice, we’ve had fewer trials but lots of appellate and trial court arguments. That said, we have four trials starting in early 2022.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

261

500 LD: How about you personally? SM: I’ve appreciated the reduced travel. It’s made for greater efficiency and less expense. It seems video hearings and depositions are with us to stay. But, there are those times when appearing in person makes a difference. Some studies claim that as much as 85 percent of communication is non-verbal. Zoom, Teams, and similar platforms don’t capture the full extent of nonverbal communication you experience in a courtroom. As an advocate you want to have every tool available. So, I miss the amount of time I spent in courtrooms. LD: You are one of the nation’s truly elite litigators, what trends do you see in terms of high-profile litigation and investigations these days? SM: Antitrust is an area of increasing activity as the current administration is stepping up its efforts. We’re starting to see disputes relating to SPACs. With highprofile athletes and other celebrities – as opposed to traditional financial players – featured in some of the transactions, you have to think the market is overheated. Crypto is still the wild west without any real regulation and high volatility in valuations. That makes it ripe for lawsuits and investigations. And we believe that while it’s a bit slow at the moment, restructuring and insolvency litigation will make a big comeback when the markets turn, as they inevitably do. We’ve added some talent and enhanced our learning in all of these areas. LD: Where does IP fit, in terms of litigation trends? SM: IP remains hot. We’re quite active in patent litigation and don’t see it slowing. With technology continuing to advance rapidly and playing so big a part in our lives, the stakes are enormous. We’re also seeing an increase in the related area of trade secrets – across an array of industries. We just collected a $31.7M judgment in a case I tried involving the development of electric power plants. We have another high-profile matter pending that involves the conversion of passenger airplanes to freighters. LD: What about litigation finance – it seems to be an increasing presence in high-profile disputes? SM: The litigation finance industry and our firm have pretty much grown up together. We know essentially all of the key players and have worked with many of them – sometimes helping vet matters, sometimes having them provide capital to a client. At its core, litigation finance is a great thing because it provides access to justice. Clients that might not be able to find a lawyer, or at least a high caliber lawyer, to take a worthy case on a full contingency basis can vindicate their rights. Smart

262

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

corporations are using it to realize the value of assets without using their own balance sheets. And law firms like ours, that do a fair amount of alternative fee work, can hedge some of their risk. There are some major financial organizations with extremely smart people committed to the space. There are some not-so-smart folks too. Like any relatively new industry you’ll see a shakeout. But long term, it’s here to stay. LD: It seems that litigation is both local and increasingly global. What has that meant for you and MoloLamken? SM: It may seem unusual for a firm with no overseas offices, but many of our clients are important organizations and individuals based outside the U.S. We have particularly strong ties to the UK, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, France and Latin America. And we have clients – including sovereigns – from other parts of the world. Many of them find us through our relationships with excellent lawyers in other countries. Our partners work to develop and maintain those relationships – calling on those lawyers and helping them whenever possible. Despite the recent nationalist rhetoric here and abroad, technology and commercial realities continue to drive law – including disputes and investigations – to become more international. Lawyers doing sophisticated work need to have sensitivity to other cultures. That’s part of our firm DNA. And besides, it’s fun having friends all over the world. LD: You lost a friend and mentor with the death of Steve Susman. Has that caused you to reflect on the meaning and effect of mentorship? SM: I’ve said before that I’ve been extremely fortunate to have had great mentors throughout my career. I met Steve when I was still in Big Law, but we became much closer once we launched MoloLamken. He was sort of the granddaddy of the litigation boutique world, a great lawyer and lots of fun. He was incredibly generous with his time and insights and wasn’t worried about helping someone who might be a competitor. He believed that sharing made for a richer life. What’s the adage, “you can hold more water in an open palm than in a tight fist”? LD: When did you see him last? SM: A few months before his biking accident we had lunch in Aspen, just the two of us. We talked about a lot of things – new types of cases, the need to make time to physically and mentally recharge, how bad the remake of Mary Poppins was. I declined to see it with Steve the night before. LD: Is there anything that sticks out from that conversation?

500

SM: It’s interesting given what’s going on with associate compensation right now. Both Susman Godfrey and our firm pay associates above the so-called “market rate.” He was saying how it was worth it and actually made, rather than cost, the firm money. The compensation attracts and rewards top talent, but the investment only pays off if you also provide associates with the training and opportunities to develop into strong lawyers. LD: How do you train and give opportunities to junior lawyers? SM: All of our associates have clerked for judges so that’s an excellent foundation. Within the first six or seven months they get ten days of offsite training through the NITA deposition and trial programs. We look for pro bono opportunities that will not only get them on their feet but also have them in charge of the case. It’s almost a rite of passage for associates to argue a 7th Circuit appeal. Most importantly, we give them responsibility on cases. They routinely take and defend fact and expert depositions. If we go to trial, we find a way for them to take a witness or argue motions. We spend a lot of time and money to hire extraordinarily talented people. Why not put that talent to work? LD: How does today’s focus on diversity and inclusion play out in an elite firm like MoloLamken? SM: We started the firm, as we say, with “five white guys.” We are extremely proud that today more than a third of our lawyers are from backgrounds traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession. And we do not have the large first and second year classes that favorably impact diversity statistics in larger firms. Our senior staff is all women, mostly women of color. We earnestly believe that diversity makes us stronger and demonstrate that belief with our time and money. We’re big supporters of the ABA Judicial Internship Opportunity Program, which places law students from underrepresented backgrounds with judges for the summer. We’re active sponsors of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, a great partnership between law firms and corporations. Several partners and associates have been LCLD fellows. We partner with Genesys Works to employ and mentor high school students from underserved communities. It’s very much on our mind. Even though we don’t have the resources of a mega-firm, we can do more, and we will. LD: Your firm has grown steadily over 12 years, adding great people and handling important, high-stakes matters. If you had to identify a single factor in that success, what would it be?

SM: It’s a little hard because a lot of things, including luck, have combined to get us where we are today. We always say it begins and ends with our people. Hard work, talent, following a clear vision all play a role. I guess if you have to single out one factor, I’d say it’s our culture. We are passionate about the representation of our clients and practicing with the highest degree of professionalism. We strive to employ the best talent and resources to do that. We recognize people bring different strengths to the firm and we work to develop those not only to benefit our clients but also to benefit our people. We work every day at having a respectful and mutually supportive environment that allows people to reach their potential. We don’t always get it right, but we try. LD: Do you see the pandemic having lasting effects on the legal profession? SM: Of course, like the rest of the world lawyers have learned you don’t need to get on a plane, or even go to the office, to meet effectively. I doubt we’ll ever go back to the traditional five days in the office work week. That’s good because it can give people more time and allow firms to access talent in remote places without opening offices. And of course, office space and cost will shrink too. The downside is that the informal mentoring and spontaneous collaboration that occurs from running into someone in the hallway will occur less often. The effect of that can’t be underestimated because we essentially train through an apprenticeship process. Firm leaders need to keep that top of mind and account for it, or the profession and those we serve are going to have problems. LD: Have you noticed the pandemic effecting how lawyers conduct themselves? SM: Anyone who tells you this has not been hard is a liar. Even the great corporate transactional firms that have enjoyed a boom have had challenges with the mental strain that the isolation, sickness or fear of getting sick, and almost total dependency on technology have imposed. Life’s more complicated. In some ways that’s a positive because I think it’s really raised awareness of the importance of mental health. What we do is hard. Seeking help has often been seen as a weakness. The pandemic has made many people realize that their mental health and the mental health of those around them has to be a priority. My best friend from law school took his own life so this issue has always been important to me. LD: Are law schools doing a good job preparing students to practice?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

263

500 264

Tamarra Matthews Johnson

Roberta Kaplan

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

Randy Johnston

Alec Karakatsanis

JOHNSTON TOBEY BARUCH DALLAS

CIVIL RIGHTS CORP WASHINGTON, D.C.

Megan Jones

Brad Karp

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Nekia Hackworth Jones

David Karp

NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Phyllis Jones

Andrew Kassof

COVINGTON WASHINGTON, D.C.

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Tonya Jones

Neal Katyal

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Elena Kagan

David Katz

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Allan Kanner

Brett Kavanaugh

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Kaplan

Ashley Keller

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

SM: We don’t hire directly from law schools but obviously our associates are the product of what’s being taught. The increased practical training through clinical courses is good. However, I think schools would better serve students and the profession by offering and requiring more and shorter courses. For example, you could learn a lot about antitrust or securities regulation in eight weeks rather than sixteen. Law school is the place to get that basic doctrinal training in a variety of subjects. I see a lot of “law and…” courses on transcripts and maybe not enough federal courts. LD: Your firm is regularly before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has faced a lot of controversy. So much so, the President created a commission to suggest reforms. Do you see changes coming to the Court? SM: The Supreme Court is really Jeff Lamken’s domain. But I can say it’s an honor for our firm to practice before it. The controversy really seems to be a function of the hard issues the Court must address that touch on competing beliefs that many Americans hold strongly. That arises in a very small percentage of cases. For many people the Court is good or bad, right or wrong based on whether their views coincide with the majority’s in those cases. Political attacks on the Court are nothing new. Theodore Roosevelt said he could carve out of a banana a Justice with more backbone than Holmes and FDR, of course, had his Court packing plan. Eisenhower called Earl Warren a dumb SOB and tried to influence the decision in Brown. Each of the Justices is extremely well qualified. They agree on many more issues than people realize, and, I believe, they try to do the right thing consistent with the law. The Court, as an institution, has served our nation well as a check on the executive and legislative branches, just as the Framers intended. All lawyers, regardless of their political beliefs, should stand up for an independent judiciary, starting with the Supreme Court. LD: Those strongly held beliefs you mention are often political. The country is deeply divided between the right and left, with dialogue and actions that are often extreme and disturbing. Where do lawyers fit in this discourse? SM: In a sense, we’re paying the price for our extraordinary liberty. The internet, the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, the virtually unlimited money that can back a cause or a candidate, the tougher burdens for public figures in defamation cases. They all contribute to the vitriol. But just because you can say almost anything, loudly, doesn’t mean you should. We have an obligation to uphold the rule of law. I tried two

redistricting cases, both more than ten years ago, that ultimately determined the control of the state legislature. The parties fought extremely hard, but everyone understood there’d be a winner and a loser and we’d abide by the court’s decision. That’s not the sentiment we’ve seen recently. Lawyers need to step up, in a non-partisan way, to both ensure, and then publicly endorse, the integrity of elections. The electoral process and peaceful transition of power are central to our democracy. Officials, with the help of responsible lawyers, have to structure and run elections that cannot be credibly challenged. And lawyers, both through organizations and individually, have to tell the public, friends and family that things are on the square. Tell them challenging the rule of law is playing with fire, and a misstep can burn down the house. Without the rule of law, we’re no better than some petty dictatorship. Every lawyer owes that to our country. LD: Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is trending. The compensation gap between lawyers at the handful of most profitable firms and those at other large firms, not to mention lawyers in smaller cities and in public service, is enormous. Lawyers have been sanctioned for making unsubstantiated allegations to challenge the election. How optimistic are you about the future of the legal profession? SM: I’m extremely optimistic about the legal profession. Law schools continue to attract bright people who want to make a difference in the world. Applications are way up. Lawyers played a central role in founding this country. Every social, political, business and scientific advancement we’ve had has been in some way tied to the law. Lawyers and the law influence the arts and religion. Smart, honest, hardworking people want to be part of that. There have always been lawyers who’ve been paid a lot of money for valuable service to business and those who are compensated much less for equally valuable service in the public interest. And the stakes in law, like the stakes in business, have gone up. That’s capitalism. Maybe the non-lawyer ownership of firms is a way to provide basic legal services at a lower cost to people who can’t afford an expensive lawyer. The fact that the courts have held lawyers accountable for their conduct in the election cases shows the system works. The law provides for our ordered liberty. Fortunately for all of us, there are still plenty of capable people who recognize that and want a career in its service.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

265

500 266

Jennifer Keller

Gayle Klein

KELLER ANDERLE IRVINE, CALIF.

SCHULTE ROTH NEW YORK

David Kelley

Jeffrey Klein

DECHERT NEW YORK

WEIL NEW YORK

T. Mark Kelly

Jamie Kocis

VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

Erika Kelton

Linda Kornfeld

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES

Karen Kennard

Michael Kosnitzky

GREENBERG TRAURIG AUSTIN

PILLSBURY MIAMI

John C. Kennedy

Kalpana Kotagal

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Kistenbroker

Brad Kotler

DECHERT CHICAGO

LATHAM CHICAGO

Ashley McKeand Kleber

Daniel Kramer

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Adam Klein

Leslie Kroeger

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Richard S. Krumholz

Daryl Lansdale

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT DALLAS

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT SAN ANTONIO

Robert Kry

Lisa Laukitis

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Walter Lack

Wendi Lazar

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK LOS ANGELES

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

William Lafferty

Mark Lebovitch

MORRIS NICHOLS WILMINGTON

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

David K. Lam

Edward Lee

WACHTELL NEW YORK

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Jeffrey Lamken

Travis Lenkner

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Brent Landau

Karen M. Lent

HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Thomas Patrick Lane

Theodore Leopold

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Mark Lanier

Marni Lerner

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

267

Jenny Martinez MUNCK WILSON (DALLAS,TEXAS)

500

JENNY MARTINEZ WHEN SHE WANTED TO BECOME A MOM, litigator Jenny Martinez knew that staying at a large downtown firm would not provide her with a stable work-life balance, so she moved to a smaller firm in the suburbs that would provide maternity leave and give her more flexibility to focus on her family’s needs.

Later in her career, Martinez rose to name partner at a downtown firm, but she did not feel that the legal industry had changed much since she was a young mother. She wanted to bring about change and make a difference in the lives of other women attorneys. To facilitate this goal, she moved to her current firm, Munck Wilson Mandala, where she has since helped recruit dozens of female attorneys and triple the firm’s number of female partners. Since her move, Martinez has devoted her career to helping more women see that it is possible to stay in the legal profession without sacrificing the choice to become a parent. A senior partner at Munck Wilson, she is also the co-chair of the litigation section, is on the firm’s executive committee, and prioritizes the recruitment of others who want to maintain a demanding legal career in a family-friendly environment. This cause is important to Martinez because, as she points out, when she was in law school 20 years ago, women made up half of the graduates, but the percentage of women equity partners in law firms is less than 10 percent. “That math doesn’t really work,” she says, “so there’s something going on. Sadly, I think a lot of women view raising a family and having a demanding legal career as an impossible balance. You find a lot of women exiting the market because it’s just too difficult.” That difficulty is what she and her partners at Munck Wilson want to mitigate. Originally brought over by leadership to help recruit women lawyers, she and her team have done that and more. They have spearheaded efforts to recruit and maintain a gender-diverse environment in a multitude of ways, including hiring more female lawyers to their team and obtaining two woman-owned boutiques. Recruitment efforts at the firm are headed by director of administration Stephanie Elovitz and are bolstered by women lawyers like Martinez, who is heavily involved in the interview process and shows women candidates that the firm is truly diverse and family-friendly, without sacrificing the quality of legal work being

PHOTO BY GREGG ELLMAN

BY ALISON PREECE done. Since she arrived at the firm, Martinez’s efforts have led to the increase in woman partnership from 15 percent to 31 percent. Of the 40 lawyers the firm has hired since 2019, 23 of them have been women. Martinez’s work with Munck Wilson and her prior firm has earned her a place in the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America since 2017. She is a trial attorney who represents her clients in business disputes, particularly in real estate, banking, employment and intellectual property. Her most challenging and memorable experience was being a key member of the trial team defending Halliburton in the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation, which remains the largest environmental litigation in U.S. history. With her commitment to empowering women to remain in the legal profession, Martinez will continue advocating for the placement of women attorneys in high-profile litigation and for a more compassionate and productive work environment for attorneys of all genders moving forward. Lawdragon: Jenny, you are the co-chair of the complex litigation group at Munck Wilson and on the firm’s executive committee. How would you describe yourself when it comes to your leadership style? Jenny Martinez: I have a pretty reserved leadership style. I think that you almost have to as a woman. It is a fine line we have to walk to be in a position of authority without being interpreted as too aggressive. Contemplative is probably the right word for how I am as a leader. LD: Were you always interested in the business side of law firms, or is it something that grew more naturally? JM: It just naturally occurred, which I think happens more often in a mid-size firm environment. I also think I’m very collaborative, which is the style of most of the leaders at my firm. That’s why I love it here. It’s a good partnership and a good meshing of styles. LD: And you joined the executive committee and became co-chair just last year, right? Was this in the midst of the pandemic or did you step into these roles before the lockdown started? JM: It was after the pandemic started. We had the lockdown and most people worked from home for about six to eight weeks. I returned in May 2020 and my promotion to executive committee and co-chair occurred at the end of 2020.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

269

500 LD: That’s nice you weren’t away for too long. JM: I was eager to get back. The City of Dallas, like so many others, shut down any businesses they deemed non-essential, which at first included us. I believe it became clear to everyone that lawyers were indeed essential, and we came back. When we opened our offices back up in May 2020, we left it optional for those who did not feel comfortable or those who were particularly impacted, like women who had children who were being homeschooled or had no backup childcare. Basically, we wanted to allow people to live their lives in that very strange time and attend to their family’s needs and allow them the opportunity to work through our technical team’s home office setups. So, it was up to the individual lawyer. For me personally, working from home was hard with four children and all the other distractions of home. So as soon as I could come back, I did. I was fortunate enough to have help with my children who could not go back to school immediately, but not everyone had that luxury. Now most people are back, though. LD: Was it a challenge to keep up the collaborative nature of the firm when people were still remote? JM: It took a very conscious effort on behalf of our executive committee to keep people engaged and keep the collaboration going. We had regular Zoom meetings about workflow, and we followed up with people to make sure everyone was okay with the work they were doing. We also had virtual happy hours which were super fun, and allowed us to keep the social life of the office alive and we could all bond over this strange situation we were in. We were able to maintain professional collaboration to get our work done and serve our clients, and we were also able to stay socially connected and check in on each other, which I thought was really needed during that time. LD: That’s wonderful, and you’re right, so needed. Were you able to retain all your staff through the year? JM: We were. And the team is growing. We’ve added several attorneys. In 2020, we added a femaleowned real estate boutique, Simpson Law, and we also brought in Carolyn Raines, who was my former partner at my prior law firm. In 2019 we acquired several lateral females, and we also have hired associates and staff. It has been an exciting time. I know a lot of firms have had the opposite experience, but we have been very fortunate that our practice has really expanded.

270

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: That’s incredible. And you’re mentioning all these women coming over – what would you say makes Munck Wilson an attractive environment for women? JM: I think it all boils down to the leadership of the firm being family-oriented and understanding that your personal life affects your working life. We want employees to meet their family obligations. Bill Munck has told me on more than one occasion, if you have something going on with your child, a game or something, “Go.” The most important thing really is to be there for your kids. Working with leaders who have that attitude makes it a lot easier for women with families. We allow people the flexibility to attend to their family needs. For women, that is particularly important because we tend to be the main caregivers, even if there are two parents in the household. So, I think other women lawyers see that we are really putting this into practice and that draws them to this environment. It’s not just someone talking the talk, and I’m proof of that. Not everyone makes the decision to have kids – especially not to have four, like me – but everybody’s situation is different, and we want to accommodate that situation, whatever your life looks like. LD: I love that. How old are your kids by the way? JM: I have three sons, who are 17, 16 and 13, and an adopted daughter who is four. The teenagers adore their sister – they’re very protective of her. LD: Oh, that’s sweet. So, tell me about when you were first starting as a young female associate. Did you seek out firms that were family-friendly? And did you have strong female mentors, or did you have to sort of build that for yourself? What was your experience? JM: The environment was very different when I was a young associate. You did not even request accommodations back in those days because you were not viewed as a team player if you did. You were not viewed as fully committed if you were not doing it the same way it’s always been done. I had some female mentors, but very few. Most of my mentors have been men. They were great mentors, but I lacked female leadership. I saw a lot of women just falling out of the market or going in-house, leaving the firm environment. I left a big firm and went to work for a small one because I wanted to have kids. That smaller firm agreed to pay me the same maternity leave that the big firms paid. I made a choice and I’ve never looked back, but

500

I had to move out of the big firm environment to make that workable for me. LD: Large law firm leaders really need to hear that because they’re missing out on some incredible talent when they ignore the family aspect. Has Munck Wilson looked at any options in terms of childcare? JM: Yes, we have a nursing room, and there’s no policy against kids in the office like there has been at other places I’ve worked. It is an unusual situation, but if you do not have somebody to watch your child and you need to come up to sign documents or finish something, no one’s going to look down on you or think that you’re breaking some kind of rule if you have your child with you. People are understanding here. LD: Tell me about your plans for growth as a firm. JM: Some of the more immediate goals are to grow our Austin office and to open a Florida office. One of our attorneys has been operating out of her Miami home for several years and she has built a multimilliondollar practice doing so. We want to expand upon that and get some more lawyers in Florida. We already have 11 attorneys in our L.A. office. Now, I don’t think we want to become a law firm with hundreds of attorneys, but we would like to add 10 to 20 lawyers in the next couple of years. LD: Are there any particular practice areas that you’re wanting to build up? JM: Yes, we want to build up our sports law practice and our real estate practice, which we’ve started doing already. We started the sports law practice by hiring Tasha Schwikert, who’s a former Olympic gymnast. Her husband is a former professional basketball player and collegiate basketball coach. We also want to continue developing our strong IP practice based on patent litigation, technology law, and our commercial litigation practice, particularly in the area of complex litigation. LD: Amazing. It sounds like you really enjoy the process of recruiting. Can you talk to me about that? JM: It is really a team effort but having me involved is very helpful in that I’m a woman and I’ve been at other firms. I can talk about the color of the grass on the other side. I’m excited about our growth and our potential and I’m excited about my move. Making the move was probably the hardest decision of my life, but I did it. One thing that has been very helpful for us also, when we obtained a woman-owned law firm in 2019, one of the lawyers in that firm, Stephanie Elovitz, was in an

administrative role, serving as their executive director. When she came to Munck Wilson, she took over the recruiting function. She’s doing other corporate legal work for the firm and some HR work, but her skills in recruiting have really made our recruiting efforts more robust and organized. LD: That’s great. And then when it comes to women, are you deliberately working towards getting your numbers up or do they just happen to be the good talent you’re seeing? JM: It was very deliberate and that is one of the reasons Bill Munck recruited me. He wanted me to bring in more women lawyers and mentor our young women lawyers. We thought it would take a couple of years to make it happen, but we met our goal of bringing other women in within a year. LD: That’s impressive, and your numbers are already much better than the national average. JM: It has been phenomenal for us all. We have a great team here and we’re going to keep it going. LD: How do you think Bill Munck chose recruiting women as a focus? JM: Yes, he is very family oriented. And I think that he, like many other leaders of law firms, started to see that you might invest the time and money in training lawyers, but then if you do not take care of them, you can lose them, which can be a devastating blow not only financially, but personally. So, Bill had already put a flexible schedule program in place when he brought me in – we had at least two female lawyers who were three-quarter time lawyers. He also made sure to watch their hours so they didn’t work full time and only get paid part time, which can happen easily in our profession. We continued with that and made more people aware of it. I was not part-time, but people could see me taking time for family obligations and know that I wasn’t going to be penalized or looked down upon for it in any way. A lot of times women have to see it to believe it. More and more companies are demanding diversity and demanding that law firms make these changes and step up. So, I think not only does it make good business sense from the perspective of training someone and not losing them, but it’s also a great model for getting new business because if your firm doesn’t look like the company that you want to work for, they’re not going to hire you. They want to see diversity and feel like they are reflected in the firm representing them. It just makes good sense to recruit women lawyers and build a firm where they want to stay.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

271

500 272

Sandra Leung

Jonathan Lowy

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB NEW YORK

BRADY CENTER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Harlan Levy

Paola Lozano

FOLEY HOAG NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Richard S. Lewis

Kenneth Lumb

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Jeremy Lieberman

Loretta E. Lynch

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Chris Lind

Eric Madden

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

REID COLLINS DALLAS

Stuart Liner

Neal Manne

DLA LOS ANGELES

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

David Lira

Jeffrey D. Marell

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Gregg LoCascio

David R. Marriott

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Kathy Love

Michael Marsh

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

AKERMAN MIAMI

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Peter Martelli

Darin P. McAtee

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Annika Martin

Sigrid McCawley

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER FORT LAUDERDALE

Keith Martin

Randi McGinn

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT WASHINGTON, D.C.

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Scott Martin

Sean McKessy

HAUSFELD NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jenny Martinez

Mike McKool

MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Stacey Martinez

Marcellus McRae

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Tammy Marzigliano

Christopher Meade

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

BLACKROCK NEW YORK

Marco Masotti

Rick Meadow

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Colette Mattzie

Sasan Mehrara

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

273

500

Matthew L. Schwartz BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER (NEW YORK)

274

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ FOR MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, PART OF THE LURE

of private practice was the “three-dimensional chess” required to represent real people and companies. At this point in his career, it’s safe to say that the former prosecutor has mastered the game. Schwartz has done so at storied litigation firm Boies Schiller Flexner, which he joined in 2015 after nearly a decade serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. No stranger to high-profile litigation, Schwartz spent years leading the investigation into the infamous Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme case. He is a three-time recipient of the Justice Department’s prestigious John Marshall Award. At Boies Schiller, Schwartz quickly became a pillar of the firm’s white-collar practice, handling a wide range of complex matters for clients like Red Granite Pictures (in the government’s $1B civil forfeiture action), AIG and DraftKings – along with many clients he has successfully kept out of the courtroom. After a few short years, Schwartz joined the firm’s executive committee and became a co-managing partner in early 2021. Lawdragon: Tell me about your career path, from private practice to Assistant U.S. Attorney to private practice again. How did that happen? Matthew Schwartz: Following law school, I briefly worked at a large international law firm, which was fine, but was probably not for me at that point in my career. LD: What about it wasn’t for you? The size? MS: Yes. I’m always someone who has appreciated learning by doing, and so the opportunity to get my hands dirty by being in a courtroom actually handling cases was very attractive. That said, coming out of law school, I had no idea what I was doing. So, the first thing that I did was fix a mistake that I had made in law school, which was not appreciating the value of a clerkship. I reached out to any judges who might be hiring, and I was very fortunate that there was a judge in the Southern District of New York who had an opening. That totally changed the arc of my career. I spent a year and a half clerking in district court, watching all varieties of matters: civil, criminal, big matters, small matters, great lawyers, terrible lawyers — all of which are important to see when you’re a young lawyer. I then spent a year clerking in the Court of Appeals.

PHOTO BY NICK COLEMAN

BY EMILY JACKOWAY When I was ready to start practicing again, I was looking exclusively at government opportunities. I knew that I wanted to represent the government in federal investigations and litigations and really be in the courtroom. I was lucky to be hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York and stayed there just shy of a decade. LD: What led you to Boies Schiller specifically when you moved to private practice? MS: One thing that I really enjoyed about working in the government was the incredible autonomy that prosecutors have. I wanted a firm that was going to trust me as much as the government trusted me. And that’s how I ended up at Boies Schiller. The firm has a unique combination of representing the biggest clients and matters, while simultaneously affording its lawyers the freedom both to handle their business and their clients’ businesses in a way that is maximally effective. LD: Were there any shifts from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to private practice that surprised you or that you found particularly rewarding? MS: Sure. I mean, being a government prosecutor has a real clarity of mission to it, right? In some senses it is a simple job. You investigate the facts, and if they support bringing a case then you litigate the case. LD: Right. MS: Being a lawyer in private practice is much more multi-dimensional, because you’re representing actual people and companies. You have to not only chart a winning legal strategy, but do that while navigating business concerns, public relations, investor relations, and all sorts of other aspects, some of which may be much more important or threatening to the client than whatever the case is that you’re handling. And, of course, you have to do it all within a budget. That sort of three-dimensional chess is what attracted me to private practice. It’s just an experience that doesn’t exist in the government, that one can only get by representing people and companies that exist in the real world. LD: Absolutely. And then moving to today, what kind of cases are you working on right now? MS: My practice is mostly government investigations, government litigation (either criminal or civil

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

275

500 enforcement), and then some purely civil adjuncts to that, especially on behalf of victims pursuing claims against criminals. I have a very heavy trial schedule right now. In October, I secured a win in a case where I was representing a private equity firm against the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission charged a company in which my client invested with running a fraudulent, deceptive business. They also sued my client, the private equity firm. We argued that you can’t hold an investor liable for whatever one of their portfolio companies does. In fact, the FTC’s approach is dangerous to business and, if successful, would have chilled investments, especially startup investments. So, we thought it was important to take a stand. We had a series of wins in that case, culminating in the judge granting our motion for judgment after the FTC rested its case at trial. I have a white collar federal criminal trial scheduled in January, and then in February I will be trying a long-running civil case in which I represent a foreign bank that was defrauded of billions of dollars by its former chairman. I was also recently retained to represent an individual who was criminally charged in a case whose lead defendant was the head of Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. They were charged with being unregistered foreign agents of the United Arab Emirates. So, that’s a significant criminal case that is just heating up. But, really, some of my biggest wins are for clients where we successfully convince prosecutors or regulators not to bring charges in the first place. I can’t talk about those cases by name, but in a lot of ways they’re the most satisfying. It’s always nice to get a jury verdict, but when you can stop the problem from getting out of hand in the first place, that’s very rewarding. LD: Right. I believe I read a quote from you saying that if you’re doing your job right, you’re trying not to get in the courtroom. MS: That’s right. Depending on the stage of a case when I’m retained, that’s right. When I’m hired early in an investigation, the goal is to convince the government one way or the other not to bring a case. Of course, I’m often hired after charges have already been brought, and in those cases clients are usually looking for me to be in the courtroom with them. LD: Looking back at trials in your career overall, are there any that stand out in your memory as either being the most interesting or complex to work on?

276

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MS: They’re all rewarding in different ways, but the Bernie Madoff trial, for example, was a mammoth endeavor. I mean, we were unraveling decades and decades of fraud. LD: How long were you working on that? MS: I was working on the case for five or six years, first as part of an incredible team of lawyers, agents, and other professionals, and ultimately as a leader of that team. The trial itself lasted about six months. A six-month-long, incredibly complicated jury trial. LD: I’m sure. MS: It was rewarding to be able to communicate to a jury this hugely complex material. We got into the actual computer code that was written to perpetrate the fraud. I mean, very, very nuanced evidence. That said, it’s also extremely rewarding to handle small cases for real people who see tangible results. As a defense lawyer, helping someone exonerate themselves after they’ve been falsely charged with wrongdoing is incredibly gratifying. I handled a case where the government had charged my client with securities fraud and conspiracy. There was no doubt in that case that a fraud was perpetrated, but my client wasn’t a part of it. He was used by the fraudsters. We tried the case for a month and the jury returned a guilty verdict, which was incredibly disappointing. But then, in a first for my career, the judge threw out the verdict and said that we had demonstrated that there were grave concerns that my client was actually innocent. Giving that news to my client, knowing not just that he wouldn’t potentially have to go to jail, but also that he could tell his parents, his wife and his very young children that the judge had understood that he was innocent – that was one of the most rewarding moments of my career. LD: I can imagine. I feel like people often forget about the very human aspect of financial litigation. MS: Right. I love representing big companies, but it is also important to have a well-rounded practice. Representing individuals has a different, much more personal aspect to it. It also allows me to have deeper and more frequent interactions with the government, which benefits all of my clients. LD: Absolutely. And then, outside of your trial work, you were recently made a co-managing partner at the firm, as well. How did you enter that role?

500

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO BE TRIAL LAWYERS, SPEND AS MUCH TIME IN A COURTROOM AS POSSIBLE. DON’T FORGET, YOU CAN ALSO GO TO COURT AS A SPECTATOR. THAT’S INCREDIBLY VALUABLE BECAUSE, AGAIN, WATCHING OTHER ATTORNEYS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THERE ISN’T ONE WAY TO BE A LAWYER. MS: I had been informally involved in various aspects of management previously, and then in early 2020 I was put on the firm-wide executive committee, which is kind of like our board of directors. And then, at the start of 2021, I became one of the managing partners of the firm. With that, I’m involved in the day-to-day management of the firm, which is a lot of the mundane logistics that are necessary to make an organization work. Earlier I mentioned the culture of our firm, with great cases, great clients and incredible freedom to our lawyers. As managing partner, I view myself as a custodian of that culture. I help take care of the logistics so that our lawyers can concentrate on doing what they do best, which is representing our clients and doing impressive work. LD: Moving back to the courtroom a bit, what is your style as a lawyer? MS: I think the most important thing is to be kind of true to yourself in the courtroom. For some people, that means being an absolute pit bull — yelling and getting in witnesses’ faces. Sometimes juries love that if it is genuine. That’s not me, though. I tend to be a lot more methodical and even keeled. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t go in for the kill when necessary. I just do it with a sharp knife, not a loud gun. LD: I can imagine that having to explain very complex financial concepts to juries must require a lot of careful methodology, as well. MS: It does. And the trick, especially when you’re talking to a jury, is to do it in a way that is both true to the facts, but not so detailed and so boring that you lose them. I mean, talking to a jury is a very artificial way of talking to people. They have no ability to ask you ques-

tions, they have no ability to ask you to repeat yourself and you’re not necessarily presenting information to them in a logical order. So, I think about it like making a movie. In film you have to capture different shots individually and then cut between them in the final version. So, it’s the lawyer’s responsibility to make very clear to the jury where we are going and what the finished product is going to look like. That way, they understand what they’re hearing as the evidence comes in and are able to tie it together in a way that makes sense to them. That clarity of purpose needs to come from the opening statement. LD: That’s great advice. Do you have any other pieces of advice you’d give early-career lawyers? MS: I would say two things: one about the practice of law, and one about the business of law. For those who want to be trial lawyers, spend as much time in a courtroom as possible. There’s a big difference between taking an evidence class and actually having to go through the process of admitting a piece of testimony or documents into evidence. Do so as a law clerk early in your career, if you can. But don’t forget, you can also go to court as a spectator. Courts are open. You can go down there and just watch. That’s incredibly valuable because, again, watching other attorneys makes it clear that there isn’t one way to be a lawyer. So, I think that’s number one, but number two – the business side of law – is to maintain all of your relationships. Be good to people, whether they’re your colleagues or your adversaries. At the end of the day, we’re all doing the same thing.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

277

Toria J. Finch HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT (HOUSTON)

500

TORIA J. FINCH JUDGE TORIA J. FINCH MADE HISTORY IN

July when she was elected the first African American female presiding judge of the Harris County, Texas, criminal courts. Her focus on fairness and equal treatment for those who come to her court reflect her long dedication to dignity for everyone. One of “The 19” African American women who successfully ran for judge in November 2018, shaking up a judiciary that many considered set in its ways and lacking compassion, Finch has made her mark with a commitment to helping individuals turn their lives around. As a child in Nashville, she loved sports and aspired to be a star basketball player. She was known for traveling around to small churches with her mother and father, the late Pastor Harold W. Finch Sr. She would introduce her mother when she was asked to be a guest speaker, which helped her develop the presence that would propel her to success as a juvenile justice advocate in the juvenile public defender’s office in Austin and then the district attorney’s office in Houston. Lawdragon: What inspired you to become a lawyer? Toria J. Finch: I honestly am not someone who always wanted to be a lawyer or knew that I would be a lawyer. I had totally different aspirations. I often dreamed that I would be one of the first women in the WNBA. This was before the league was even discussed. Isn’t that crazy? In fact, before they named it the WNBA, I would call it the WNBA. I used to be a true athlete. I played basketball and was an all-star in softball. I also played volleyball and ran track. I was very much so into athletics. I attended McGavock High School. While in high school, the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball was known for having amazing teams. I would go down there and play in basketball tournaments and participate in trainings. I often wished that I could one day be a part of their team. But life happens. LD: How did you go from all-star athlete to all-star lawyer and judge? TJF: I suffered an injury. I was really good but just could not recover after the second injury. So, I said, “Okay, well, what will you do next, Toria?” I wanted to remain close to the sport. I thought about being a sports agent. That was during the era of Jerry Maguire, “Show me the money.” I did a little research

PHOTO BY FELIX SANCHEZ

BY KATRINA DEWEY while attending college and learned that many successful sports agents either had a legal background or they had a marketing background, and sometimes both. So, while attending Alabama A&M University I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Marketing, and interned with the Huntsville Flights, a basketball team in the National Basketball Development League, Chick-fil-A and had so many other wonderful internship opportunities. I was raised in a blue-collar background that emphasized service to others. I’m a preacher’s kid. My father was a manager of a neighborhood U.S. Post Office, and the pastor of a small church located in a place which was often referred to in south Nashville as “The Bottom.” My mother worked in education and became the president of a college. My family has always worked in public service and focused on helping people. While I enjoyed basketball, and working closely with the sport, it really was not the environment or industry that maximized what I believed my strengths and abilities were, which was helping people. My mother had a premonition. She would always speak at different churches in different places in Tennessee and Alabama, and she would have me introduce her. She told me during our drive to a church down in Alabama, “You know what, Toria, I just had a vision that you’re supposed to be an attorney.” During our drive back home after she finished speaking I thought about it, but I doubted that it was possible because I was not accustomed to interacting with attorneys or judges. After having the conversation with my mother, I took a business law class in my senior year of college. It was during that class when I received my first opportunity to interact with a lawyer. My instructor was a practicing attorney. I absolutely loved the class. During the semester he said, “You know what, you’re really good at this. You might want to look into working in the legal field.” So my interest in law took off from there. After graduating from college I attended Southeastern Paralegal Institute in Nashville, Tenn. I graduated and received a Paralegal Certificate. Immediately following school, I worked as a paralegal, for a large firm in Nashville. Within two years of working as a paralegal I decided to apply to law school. Three years later I graduated from Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University. The rest is history.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

279

500

I’LL NEVER FORGET MY EXPERIENCES AS AN ASSISTANT JUVENILE PUBLIC DEFENDER. I LOVED THE FIGHT. YOU’RE FIGHTING TO SAVE A YOUNG PERSON AND GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES FOR REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT AND SECURE THE POSSIBILITY OF A FUTURE. LD: Amazing. Tell me about your career between when you graduated from law school and decided to run for the bench? TJF: I accepted an offer from one of my externships when I was in law school. I became a Juvenile Public Defender. I loved my job because I love kids. At the Juvenile Public Defender’s office in Travis County, Texas, I worked with so many at-risk kids and came to realize how broad that definition is. We tend to reduce it down to marginalized communities, but there are so many kids, even in well-to-do homes, that are at risk for various reasons. I’ve advocated for kids that were charged with everything, from truancy to sexual assault cases and murder. My first case was a murder. My client was charged with murdering her parent. I’ll never forget my experiences as an Assistant Juvenile Public Defender. I loved the fight. It’s different in the juvenile world. You’re fighting to save a young person and give them opportunities for rehabilitative treatment and secure the possibility of a future. During my time with the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office I grew as an attorney and received my board certification in juvenile law. Approximately six years later, I decided that I wanted to expand my experiences and continue to improve my litigation skills. So, I decided to return to the District Attorney’s Office in Houston, Texas where I interned while attending law school. They offered me an opportunity to work in their juvenile division. So, I returned to Houston and became an Assistant District Attorney. I prosecuted cases in juvenile court, as well as in the adult courts. After practicing on both sides of the bar and witnessing concerns within the court system I decided that I was ready to take it to the next level. During law school, I thought about being a judge, but then I quickly realized that I didn’t like politics.

280

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Ultimately, politics is what deferred my dreams or further aspirations of becoming a judge. I practiced for almost 12 years before I decided to run for the bench. LD: Were there things that you saw or experiences you had while practicing law that especially spoke to you about why you wanted to become a criminal court judge? TJF: Absolutely. It was what I saw and experienced as an attorney in the courtroom every day that resonated with me. When you are a public defender or an assistant district attorney you’re in court every day. That’s your world. My aspirations of becoming a judge were also impacted from my life as a preacher’s kid. My father would advocate for young people all the time. When someone’s child is in trouble, who do they call – the preacher, right? LD: Absolutely. TJF: Seeing him advocate for people from the church’s perspective was instrumental in what I do today. Putting it all together made me realize that I could have a greater impact on the criminal justice system if I ran. The main reason I ﬁnally decided to run for a judicial ofﬁce, after waiting so long, stems from one of my last conversations with my father before he passed away. He kept saying, “Toria, why don’t you do it?” I played with the idea for so many years but it wasn’t until he passed away that I had to make a decision. While deciding my path forward after my father’s death, I had to make some decisions. At the time, I did not have any biological family that resided in Texas. All of my family basically resided in Tennessee or in Atlanta. It was important to me to be with my family and to take care for my mother. We are a very close family. I had to decide whether it was best for me to move back home to Nashville and leave everything in Texas.

500

Amber Melius

David Mitchell

KINSELLA WEITZMAN SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Thomas Melsheimer

Steve Molo

WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

Brian Melton

Lisa Monaco

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mark Mendelsohn

Elicia Montoya

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Ed Micheletti

Michelle Moore

SKADDEN WILMINGTON

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

Donald Migliori

Carlos E. Moore

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM GRENADA, MISS.

Betsy Miller

Laurence Moy

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Scott D. Miller

Francis Patrick Murphy

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Ted Mirvis

Linda Myers

WACHTELL NEW YORK

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

281

500 There was something in my heart. The desire of being a judge was still there and resurfaced. I talked to my mom and my family about it and said, “I’m willing to do whatever I can do to support you mom, and the family. But I just need to ask you for one more thing.” I expressed to them that I wanted the chance to run for ofﬁce so that at least I could leave Houston with closure. Leaving Texas meant leaving years of laying foundation and networks. I’m from Nashville, but there they don’t know me as Attorney Toria. They know me as little Toria. It would have been a whole new world. I felt like God had me in Texas for a reason, and it was in my heart for a reason. We prayed about it as a family. I said, “If I don’t win, I’ll come home.” They said, “You should run. You’ll be great and you will win.” I appreciate their love and support, because I could not have done it without them. My father passed a few days before Christmas. His passing was very tough on my family.

Who told you that you couldn’t be?” And I tell them that, “I expect you to be successful. As long as you’re coming to this court, I’m not giving up on you. Even if you give up on yourself.”

LD: I’m sorry.

I think a lot of that comes from my spiritual foundation. I understand that no one is perfect. Everyone has ﬂaws and can use the help of somebody. And nothing is a coincidence. For the people in my court, we were destined to meet: “We’re meeting for a reason and I want your life to be different just because of this encounter.”

TJF: It’s okay. The New Year comes and I’m still home. I took off of work and stayed at home until February or March with my family and I announced in May. A few months after returning from Nashville, I met with the Harris County Democratic Party. I announced my judicial campaign on my father’s birthday, July 28. LD: When you think about different experiences or maybe different parties that have been before you, since you’ve been on the bench, are there any that come to mind that really signify why you wanted to become a judge? TJF: Yes. The strange thing is, in every case that comes before the court, I’m always reminded of why I ran. Everyone is there for a reason. It’s not always about guilt and innocence, sometimes it about simple humanity. When the prosecutor reads the ofﬁcer’s report and you hear allegations that the accused made racially explicit statements to the police ofﬁcer or to their neighbor, etc. Then, they come to the court and they see me sitting there. To see their faces is kind of interesting. The opportunity to show compassion and positivity, is just amazing. I think that’s an important reason to be there.

Or having that single mom that comes in with her child. She says, “I don’t know what else I can do.” I say, “Ma’am, I’m going to help you and do everything that I can to help your child. Because I want the same things that you want for your child.” It could be the person who has an addiction to drugs and or alcohol. They just don’t know it, or they don’t want to admit it. Or maybe they do want to admit it, but no one’s taking time to help them and say, “Hey, you know what? I’m not going to accept the time served on your case. We’re going to give you an assessment, see what the experts think you need to help you be successful because where you are doesn’t have to be the rest of your life.”

LD: That’s beautiful. TJF: There are cases where there might be a dismissal. Sometime before the dismissal, I will still take time and say, “Hey, you know what? In the state of Texas marijuana is illegal. I know the DA’s ofﬁce is not testing it right now, but you will continue to be arrested for it here. That means you’re going to have to take off from work. You have to spend money. You have to come down here and see me. You have to go through the booking and ﬁngerprinting process. Now it’s on your record, is that really worth it? I mean, is that how you want to spend your time?” I always try to seize the opportunity to have that conversation to say, “Stop, and look at what’s happening.”

LD: Absolutely.

For every person that comes in, I try to ﬁnd some human connection, beyond the case number, because everyone has a story. Everyone. I just try to ﬁgure out what that is and see it from their view.

TJF: There are some stereotypes or hard feelings that may have happened in the past with the people in court. If it’s a young person, whether they’re white, Black or Hispanic, it’s important to take time and try to help them. I’ve worked with young people. I like to say: “Hey, what do you need to be successful?

LD: It’s really remarkable to look at people holistically. Not just saying, “Top down, here’s what you did wrong. Let’s process you through.” It’s, “Well, you’re here for this, but it seems like you’ve got an issue with this.” Really working, using your role as the judge with people as people, right? They’re not just parties.

282

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

TJF: Correct. Just trying to reason with them and to help them see themselves as they are, and how they could be. I’m going to take a leap and say that everyone has challenges. As a Black woman, I believe Black women in general experience intersectional discrimination. For that reason, it is easier for me to relate to the humanity of all people. I can tell you, I’ve felt it. I don’t necessarily have an obvious privilege that would prevent me from not experiencing it. I have so many stories. One in particular that will stick with me forever was when my teenage brother, my mom, my aunt and my little cousins and I were in Alabama visiting one of my great aunts for her birthday. We were returning from the bowling alley. It was 8:30, almost nine o’clock at night. My brother was driving, and I was sitting in the back seat with my aunt and my two cousins. My mom was sitting in the front seat. None of us had been drinking alcohol. But we were driving and a police officer pulled behind my brother and pulled him over. The officer approached my brother and pulled him out of the car immediately, on a dark dusty road. He began to interrogate him about the reasons he was driving too slow. We had the windows down and we were listening. My brother said, “I didn’t realize we were driving so slow.” The officer radios for backup. I want to say at least three patrol cars come out and they began to take my brother through all this interrogation and moving him to the back of the vehicle, and pointing flashlights at him and in the car. It was absolutely insane and very scary quite honestly. All for driving too slow in the deep south of Alabama. LD: That is insane. TJF: Imagine if we weren’t there, what would have happened to my brother? The way they were treating him was not right. That is not the only experience I could point to. But the point is that I can understand what it feels like to be either invisible or to be under-

estimated or be discounted. I don’t like that feeling, so I don’t want it to happen to anyone else. Having those experiences has been very helpful. Do I make all the right decisions? No. I think everybody, including Black people, we still have implicit biases. I think that’s something we have to remain conscious of and continue to work on. But I do think ultimately it’s our experiences that helps us see the humanity in the people that we serve. LD: We all have implicit biases. Right? We’re all just trying to learn, but it’s like when you only have one set of implicit biases judging everybody else. I think every Black man who’s a lawyer whom I’ve interviewed in the past few years has a story about being pulled over, and what would have happened if. And when you think about that before there were not many Black judges or Black female judges in Harris County. Now there are, so the defendants come before you, but so do the police officers. TJF: Right. It’s an awesome blessing, and a curse. It definitely is a wonderful opportunity to bring balance and attempt to make things right for everybody. I just really believe in my heart that our judges, especially in Harris County, have to accurately reflect the people that we serve. We need to have more Hispanic judges. We need Asian judges. We have to have the representation. We learn from each other. Many times, when we have our judicial meetings, we will communicate with each other about what happened in court. It’s interesting to get the feedback from other judges, as to, “Hey, consider it this way” or “Have you ever heard of this before?” It’s really helpful to have input from everyone at the table. It changes things. We vote on procedure and policy all the time. It’s good for us to have the experiences of everybody so we know whether this policy has some inherent discriminatory feature that we’re not even considering.

NOTHING IS A COINCIDENCE. FOR THE PEOPLE IN MY COURT, WE WERE DESTINED TO MEET: “WE’RE MEETING FOR A REASON AND I WANT YOUR LIFE TO BE DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE OF THIS ENCOUNTER.” LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

283

500 284

Amol Naik

Jeannemarie O’Brien

SQUIRE PATTON ATLANTA

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Frederick Nance

David A. O’Neil

SQUIRE PATTON CLEVELAND

DEBEVOISE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Daniel A. Neff

Sean O’Shea

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Sharon Nelles

Kevin J. Orsini

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Robert Nelson

Gregory Ostling

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jennifer Newstead

Jennifer Pafiti

FACEBOOK MENLO PARK, CALIF.

POMERANTZ LOS ANGELES

Sonia Nijjar

Brian Panish

SKADDEN PALO ALTO

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

Sabastian Niles

Robin Panovka

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Victoria Nugent

Stephanie Parker

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

JONES DAY ATLANTA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Michael A. Paskin

Joseph Petrosinelli

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kathy Patrick

Eric Posner

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

MOLOLAMKEN/UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL CHICAGO

Latosha Lewis Payne

Warren Postman

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

KELLER LENKNER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sandra Peake

Joseph Power

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Gerry Pecht

A. Michael Pratt

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

GREENBERG TRAURIG PHILADELPHIA

Jason Peltz

Peter Prieto

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

PODHURST MIAMI

Luis Penalver

Patrick Quinn

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Elizabeth Peterson

Abid Qureshi

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kimberly C. Petillo-Decossard

Shawn Rabin

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

285

500

Robin Cohen COHEN ZIFFER (NEW YORK)

286

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ROBIN COHEN “MY ONLY REGRET IS THAT I WISH I WOULD HAVE DONE THIS FIVE OR 10 YEARS AGO.” The idea of starting a new firm is daunting, strategically difficult and not for the faint of heart. As evidenced by her groundbreaking career, however, powerhouse lawyer Robin Cohen is anything but faint-hearted. A renowned insurance coverage attorney and chair of her firm, Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna, Cohen advocates for policyholders in landmark cases. Unafraid to go to trial in massive bet-the-company litigation, Cohen has recovered billions of dollars for Fortune 500 companies, such as Verizon and Pfizer, for claims ranging from environmental coverage to employee dishonesty to asbestos-related litigation. In one case, Cohen secured a big win for her client, Warren Pumps Inc., obtaining more than $500M in insurance coverage for the company, and changing the way asbestos coverage policies are triggered. Her deep experience in the insurance recovery field, and that of her close-knit team of more than two decades, inspired Cohen to start her boutique firm with partners Adam Ziffer, Kenneth Frenchman and Keith McKenna in January 2021. “The four of us, we’ve been together for over 20 years. We finish each other’s sentences,” Cohen explains. That familiarity, coupled with the global seismic shift in insurance claims initiated by the Covid-19 pandemic, led the four partners to found a firm that has exploded onto the insurance recovery scene, aided by the quartet’s reputation and Cohen’s remarkable command of business acquisition. Already highly regarded for their work at previous firms including Dickstein Shapiro and McKool Smith, since opening its doors in January, the firm has been sought out as coverage counsel for a barrage of new matters related to the pandemic. Cohen recently appeared in court as lead counsel for various real estate companies including Thor Equities LLC, JDS Development Group LLC and JGB Vegas Retail Lessee LLC in Covid-19 litigation cases. In those disputes, Cohen successfully argued that the companies’ claims could not be dismissed summarily and that policyholders should be given an opportunity to prove their business losses. In a rapidly changing pandemic world, Cohen is leading the charge to

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

BY EMILY JACKOWAY find relief for policyholders, after more than a year of losses and hardship. Lawdragon: So, you’ve just had a major shift in your career with your decision to open your own firm. How did you know that was the move that you wanted to make right now? Robin Cohen: So, for the past five or 10 years, my team and I were really creating our own group within our firms and bringing in our own business. We were very productive, and our client base grew significantly. Then, Covid hit, and I think we all had some time for personal and professional reflection. And that stayat-home reflection time coupled with the fact that many of our cases blew up during that time – both because our clients were dealing with Covid losses and we handle a lot of coverage cases for D&O and ransomware attacks – we realized that we’re a pretty close-knit group. We wanted to forge our own path, to really bet on ourselves. So, we did a financial analysis of whether it would be fruitful to go ahead and open our own firm. It wasn’t even a close call. Because of our established team dynamic, starting our own firm was much easier than we had imagined. We had the luxury of a large client base that moved with us and it was a seamless process as we brought on new clients. We are, at this point, killing it in the sense that we hit the ground running with a very active caseload and new clients are knocking on our door every day. So we got a big splash in starting our own firm. LD: That’s so exciting. Then, tell me what it’s like being a female chair of a firm – do you find that your role changes the environment? RC: Absolutely. That’s another great thing about our firm – because it’s a woman-chaired firm, close to half our partners are women, and we are getting some of the best women and minority associates. I mean, they just seek us out. LD: Why do you think women are moving from Big Law to firms like yours? RC: I think a lot of women are unhappy, frankly. I think Big Law is trying to make things equitable, but there are subtle subconscious biases and inequities within the firms, not only with the assignments of cases, but

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

287

500 288

Brian Ratner

Tracie J. Renfroe

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

KING & SPALDING HOUSTON

Sarah M. Ray

Alison Ressler

LATHAM SAN FRANCISCO

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES

Shawn Raymond

Ana Reyes

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Barrett Reasoner

Michael T. Reynolds

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Jennifer Recine

Joseph Rice

KASOWITZ NEW YORK

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Noelle M. Reed

Robert Riley

SKADDEN HOUSTON

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

William T. Reid IV

David Ring

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

TAYLOR & RING LOS ANGELES

Julie Goldsmith Reiser

Darren Robbins

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Lorin Reisner

John Roberts

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

on a compensation level, as well. I think that women are starting to see that more clearly. When you go to a firm that’s smaller and womenbased, all those issues go out the window. If I’m deciding who I want to help me try a case, gender is not going to be a factor. It’s going to be a purely meritbased decision. I think a lot of women feel that’s not the case at other firms. LD: You’ve been a longtime advocate for women in the legal profession. Have you seen a major shift over the last 30 years or so when it comes to how women lawyers are treated? RC: I’d say there’s really been a shift in the last five years. I’m not sure if it’s because of the #MeToo movement, or other factors, but the last few years have really exposed what a lot of women have gone through and the situations they have had to navigate that aren’t issues for men. As a result, companies, especially those where women are the General Counsels or Heads of Litigation, are seeking out women to lead the charge in their legal representation. I’ve been the beneficiary of that, especially in the last few years as I have had women GCs seek me out to represent their corporations. Sometimes they’ll go to Chambers, and they’ll look for the best insurance coverage lawyers. There aren’t that many women on the list, so they’ll call me. So, I think women are starting to generate more business, and I think that will change the dynamic. But it has been a slow process. LD: That makes sense. You’ve also said recently that the pandemic might help encourage more women to kind of follow the same path that you did in starting their own firms. Why women in particular? RC: Well, with the pandemic, significantly more women are leaving the workplace than men. That might be due to some women having primary responsibility for the kids, and the kids being home from school. But I also think that sometimes when you’re not in the office in the middle of things, you have time to reflect on whether you’re really happy. Some women who started their own law firms have said that women are a little more risk-averse than men. I think that’s true on some level. I think women may be a little bit more cautious overall, but the primary problem as I see it is that you can’t start your own firm if you don’t have the business, and women, as a group, haven’t established a client base on par with that of their male counterparts, for a host of reasons.

But I think that’s changing as women are being presented with more business development opportunities. As women build their own “books of business” they will gain financial independence and be able to start their own firms, if they choose. The more we continue that trend at women-chaired firms like ours, the more you’re going to see copycats, in a good way. LD: Oh, that’s great. Then, speaking of Covid and building your business, tell me about the explosion of cases that you’ve had related to Covid. RC: So, we’re representing pharmaceutical companies, real estate companies, name-brand retailers, airlines, sports leagues, hospitals, universities – you name it. The thing is, many companies suffered devastating business losses as a result of Covid, and almost all companies suffered some loss – not just nationally, but internationally. When Covid hit, my partners and I were literally on the phone from dawn until late at night for seven months, nonstop. And then, after we worked on a case, we would get recommended for the next one. So, we probably nearly doubled our client base as a result of Covid. We were providing legal counsel in “real time,” as clients were sending us their policies to analyze. Our deep institutional knowledge allowed us to provide advice to our clients on an ad hoc basis in emergent situations. For six months, we worked around the clock to meet our clients’ needs. The enormity of the situation is hard to quantify but I can say that, during that time period, it eclipsed the workload we experienced after 9/11 or Hurricane Sandy, most likely because the pandemic was a global event. I’m particularly passionate about the issues in these cases, especially those involving first responders, like hospitals. Care providers experienced tremendous business losses even though they were on the frontlines saving lives. The insurance industry is fighting hard not to pay in these cases and denying claims outright, despite their merits. I think it’s going to come back to bite them, but we’ll see how it all pans out. No one knows yet. LD: Right. What grounds are insurance agencies denying coverage on? RC: They’re saying that the virus doesn’t cause “physical loss or damage,” and “physical loss or damage” is not defined in the policy. So, their argument is that you need structural damage to the covered property in order to obtain coverage. But that’s not what their policies say.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

289

500 Viruses can cause physical damage, even if it’s not structural damage, as well as physical loss of property in that you can’t use it for its intended purpose. So, the courts really have to decide. We’re saying that the insurance companies are trying to rewrite their policies to add “structural damage” when the word “structural” does not appear. LD: Okay. That makes sense. Then, you mentioned that a lot of the business that you’ve been getting for Covid claims has been through recommendations from other clients. Tell me about that. RC: That’s true, and a lot of folks at Big Law, like other attorneys who I work with closely, have also recommended us. And then, when you win a significant issue regarding the scope of an exclusion, like we did in Thor Equities, the news gets reported by a number of outlets. I must have received 30 calls as a result of our representation of Thor Equities. So, my view is that the best form of business development is simply winning. We talk about that strategy a lot at our firm. We don’t do much formal business development. Instead, we take on complex cases, we win them, and then we let everyone know that we won. That’s our basic marketing plan in a nutshell. LD: That’s the best kind of marketing. RC: Very, very efficient. Very streamlined. I will tell you, it really works for us. We win cases that our competitors don’t. So, that’s our mantra. The other aspect that sets our team apart is that we’re real trial lawyers. So, clients know, not only are we not afraid of trials, we want to go to trial, if we can. That maximizes the dollars for our clients because you receive better settlements when the industry knows that you’re not afraid to go to trial. LD: Speaking of the lawyers at your firm, how do you decide what kind of people you want to bring onto your team? RC: Well, our last firm was very conscious of the grades that applicants received in law school, which law schools they attended and whether they were on law review. I look at things very differently. First, it’s great if applicants attended a first-tier law school or were on law review, but if they’re in the top 10 percent of a secondtier law school, or they were number one in their moot court competition, or they distinguish themselves in another way, that’s great, too. I’m looking for people

290

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

who are dynamic and well-rounded. People who are good public speakers, who are good on their feet, people who can captivate and draw in a jury. The other thing I’m looking for is diversity. I’m a strong believer that if you have a diverse team not only do you invite more diverse ideas, but you also perform better in the courtroom. If your team is reflective of a cross-section of society, like juries are, that’s going to resonate with the jury. But you can’t have a situation where the women or diverse members on your team are just present. They have to be active participants and assume significant roles. So, I would say that the more dynamic and proactive a candidate is, the better. Straight As on a transcript aren’t what I look for in a candidate. I mean, that’s a great achievement, but I’m looking for those qualities that I think will make a candidate a successful trial lawyer. LD: Right. And how would you recommend younger lawyers go about distinguishing themselves and building their personal style? RC: I would say to law students who are interested in a boutique litigation practice like ours, be proactive and reach out to the firm. A lot of times you may reach out and you don’t get a response because partners are busy. Timing is everything. So, if you don’t reach anyone the first time, try again, because you never know who’s going to be responsive. LD: That’s great. Then, what made you become passionate about representing policyholders? RC: Well, it was totally by accident. I started practicing at Anderson Kill right out of law school. Everyone was a partner there at that time, which was great because I knew that I would probably make a better partner than an associate. I didn’t know that the firm only represented policyholders in coverage disputes. I accepted the offer to work there because I liked the people. But when I received my first work assignment, I was really confused. I didn’t understand why we were taking a position that was adverse to the insurance company. I asked Randy Paar, a more senior partner who would later become my mentor, “Why are we taking this position? Isn’t this an insurance case?” That’s when Randy told me, “We don’t represent the insurance companies, we represent the policyholders.” I had no idea. But it was amazing how the practice fit my personality completely. I enjoy plaintiffs’ work because the plaintiff is the party that pushes things forward. But with

500

the insurance recovery practice, you also have access to resources that are typical of a defendant because you’re representing large companies as plaintiffs who are accustomed to being defendants. So, the insurance recovery practice allows me to litigate in the way that best suits my personality. Another thing I love about my practice is that winning a case for plaintiffs means that my clients are obtaining substantial monetary recoveries. It has also been easier for me to develop business in my field than many of my colleagues because 90 percent of the bigger firms are conflicted out because they represent insurance companies. So, over the years, my colleagues at Big Law have continually referred clients to me. Between the recommendations and the large recoveries I’ve obtained for my clients, I have been very fortunate to experience the tremendous growth of my practice. LD: Oh, that’s fantastic. And you are obviously extremely skilled at bringing in business. What do you love about doing that? RC: Oh, I really love developing new business. I think it’s in my DNA. One of the things I look for in associates and junior partners is whether it’s in their DNA, too. LD: How can you tell if it’s in someone’s DNA? RC: You know it when you see it. They tend to be more social, people with charisma. It can be a quiet charisma, too. I also think that business originators tend to be more strategic in the way they approach cases, and they relate better to CFOs, who are much more businessoriented. I think you can mentor a lawyer on how to develop business, but only to a point. It takes some initiative on the lawyer’s part and the ability to connect with prospective and existing clients, to make them understand that their case is just as important to you as it is to them. And so, I learned pretty early on that my ability to draw people in and focus on their needs was one of my talents. I started bringing in business when I was 35. I realized that all you have to do is ask. If you don’t, you’re not going to secure a position of power within your institution. LD: That makes sense. And then, taking it back to early in your career, I just wanted to ask about any mentors you had. I know you mentioned one – Randy Paar.

RC: Randy Paar was a significant mentor of mine. She was a phenomenal woman. I’ve never seen a lawyer perform as well as she did in oral argument or in court. Her father was Jack Paar, Johnny Carson’s predecessor. So, if we want to talk about a line of work as being part of our DNA – Randy was accustomed to performing; her delivery was flawless. She was so unbelievably good in court. Randy was a great mentor. And then I had a male mentor who is still a dear friend, Jerry Oshinsky. Jerry was a name partner at Anderson Kill. In fact, it was Jerry who made the decision to move our team to Dickstein Shapiro, and he’s the one who put me at the head of Dickstein’s New York office. We grew that firm from five lawyers to over one hundred. In fact, Adam Ziffer, Ken Frenchman and Keith McKenna, who are the other three founding partners of our firm, were all with me at Dickstein Shapiro and instrumental in the growth of their New York office. LD: Speaking of growth, where do you see your firm going from here? RC: Well, we want to be the leading firm in the country representing policyholders. We also want to expand geographically. Our biggest challenge right now is deciding whether to grow in other practice areas, because there are other areas that are synergistic, like antitrust work or litigation against banks. After we’ve had a couple of years under our belt, I think that’s when we’ll make that decision. Either way, we’re committed to growing organically. LD: Right. You mentioned that you were looking to expand out to the West Coast, right? RC: Yes, to California. Many of our clients are located on the West Coast and we represent a lot of tech companies. So, I think we’ll probably have a presence there within the next year. That said, I think we’ve all learned from the pandemic experience that effective lawyers can work effectively remotely, without being physically present in a location. LD: That’s so true. And, no matter where you are, what would you say your firm’s driving philosophy is? RC: I think the most important thing is to continue winning. So, our philosophy is work hard and play hard. The key is being a little more creative, thinking outside the box and devising a winning strategy. It’s what makes the practice so much more interesting and exciting.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

291

500 292

Sharon Robertson

Kathryn Ruemmler

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK

Sandra H. Robinson

Kevin Russell

T HE COCHRAN LAW FIRM WASHINGTON, D.C.

GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL BETHESDA, MD.

Larry Rogers Jr.

Antony L. Ryan

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Christine G. Rolph

Faiza J. Saeed

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Anthony Romero

Ronald Safer

ACLU NEW YORK

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

Steven Rosenblum

Kelli Sager

WACHTELL NEW YORK

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LOS ANGELES

Eric Rosof

Patrick Salvi II

WACHTELL NEW YORK

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Hannah Ross

P. Anthony Sammi

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Samuel Rudman

Katie Sammons

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Christina Guerola Sarchio

Richard Schoenberger

DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

Edward Sassower

Bob Schumer

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

John Savarese

Ronald Schutz

WACHTELL NEW YORK

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

William Savitt

Jodi Schwartz

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Dick Sayles

Matthew Schwartz

BRADLEY ARANT DALLAS

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Eric Schiele

Leah Ward Sears

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

SMITH GAMBRELL ATLANTA

Ivan Schlager

Craig P. Seebald

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

VINSON & ELKINS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Allison Schneirov

Christopher Seeger

SKADDEN NEW YORK

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

George F. Schoen

Jennifer Selendy

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

293

500

Gary Bornstein Kevin Orsini CRAVATH (NEW YORK)

294

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

GARY BORNSTEIN & KEVIN ORSINI THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING A COMMONALITY

in the work of Cravath’s litigators is the dizzying array of industries and types of disputes the department touches. An obvious theme, perhaps, is the consistently high-profile nature of the cases for the firm’s unparalleled client base, which in recent matters has included Qualcomm, Facebook, PG&E, American Express, Time Warner and too many others to name here. According to department Co-Heads Gary Bornstein and Kevin Orsini, however, what truly sets the team apart is its unrelenting approach to seeing past individual cases to grasp the broader business interests of clients whose needs are informed by deep histories and the daily demands of forward-planning. When having a great trial lawyer simply isn’t enough – as is often the case these days – Cravath provides a deep bench where each member is expected to place the granular decision-making of complex disputes within the global picture of entire industries. Of course, as Cravath lifers, Bornstein and Orsini do not credit themselves for the long list of recent achievements, instead placing them within the context of the firm’s traditions from which they both emerged. Most prominent is Cravath’s rotation system for associates, which creates “generalists” by providing experience across several of the litigation department’s core practice areas. As they rise in their careers, Cravath’s more well-rounded group of young lawyers see themselves not only as emerging partners to one another but also with the clients who come to the firm with their most challenging and important matters. Lawdragon: What attracted each of you to Cravath, and to become a litigator? The firm is no stranger to precedent-setting matters – was there a particular case, the chance to work with a specific lawyer, or something else that drew you in? Gary Bornstein: Becoming a litigator was the only path I considered while in law school. Litigation was a natural fit for me, because it would give me opportunities to be on my feet and also let me focus on crafting persuasive writing and telling a narrative at trial. Compelling storytelling, backed by a meticulously assembled record, is key to successful litigation. My decision to come to Cravath was simple: I wanted to be part of the litigation practice. As a law student, I saw the exciting clients who came to Cravath and the significance of the matters Cravath handled. It was

PHOTO BY NICK COLEMAN

BY JOHN RYAN

obvious that clients placed immense trust in Cravath to handle their most complex and high-stakes work on matters that could impact the trajectory of the company’s business. Kevin Orsini: I first became interested in litigation as an undergraduate, when I interned for an indigent defense clinic at a local law school. The issues involved and the passion of the law students I worked alongside solidified my interest in the legal system. In particular, I was fascinated by the trials and other hearings I was able to observe and quickly realized that I wanted to pursue a profession that would allow me to be in court as much as possible. What ultimately drew me to Cravath was the promise of being trained as a trial lawyer by the best in the business. I was intrigued by the generalist model that would allow me to hone my skills in a wide range of litigations across diverse subject matters. Learning to become an expert in a variety of legal disciplines, while representing clients across a host of industries, really appealed to me. LD: Could you each talk about some of your early experience as associates, and any mentors who helped shape your approach to litigation? GB: My first mentor at Cravath was the first partner I worked with as an associate: the late Bob Joffe. He was an extraordinary lawyer who shaped my entire approach to litigation. I learned from Bob just how much of the job of a litigator is about dealing with people. He taught me that while you have to master the nuts and bolts, like writing briefs and examining witnesses, you cannot really succeed unless you also connect with and truly get to know the people involved at every step of a case. Bob was an expert at consensus building and magically getting people to come together. It was his thoughtful guidance and patience as a mentor that set the foundation for everything else I learned in my other rotations. KO: One experience as a young associate stands out to me, both in terms of my own development and in terms of explaining the Cravath model of training. My first year as an associate, I was assigned to work on a large accounting-related securities fraud litigation. It was fairly new to the firm, and not much work had been done on it. The partner to whom I was assigned suggested that I spend a few months

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

295

500 296

Philippe Selendy

Gerald Silk

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Joseph Sellers

Stuart Singer

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BOIES SCHILLER FORT LAUDERDALE

Derek Sells

Hezekiah Sistrunk

T HE COCHRAN LAW FIRM NEW YORK

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM ATLANTA

Dana Seshens

Rachel G. Skaistis

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Karen P. Seymour

Steven Sklaver

GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Kannon Shanmugam

Rodney Slater

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SQUIRE PATTON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Nina Shaw

Daniel Slifkin

DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Gina M. Shishima

Daniel Small

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Anne Sidrys

Grasford Smith

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

AKERMAN WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

learning everything I possibly could about the more than one dozen different accounting issues, so that is what I did. By the time depositions came around, I had become the in-house subject matter expert on all of the key factual issues, and this provided me a tremendous advantage in working with the witnesses and led to significant responsibility early in my career. That lesson – always be the most prepared – has always stuck with me. LD: Can you remember the first time you appeared in court? Tell us a bit about the case, your preparation leading up to it and any lessons you took away from the experience. GB: I’m not sure I recall my first time in court, but one of my formative memories is from when I was a young associate, still in my first rotation. I remember being at the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. We were representing Time Warner Cable in a consumer class action antitrust matter, and we were there on a motion for class certification. There were several other lawyers representing other defendants who argued before me, and by the time I got to the podium, I really had nothing more to add. So I told the judge that unless he had questions for me, I would rest on the papers and the points that the other defense counsel had raised. Hours and hours of preparation led to a pretty anticlimactic hearing. But we won the motion, and the plaintiffs then dropped the case. No drama for me, but a great result for the client. I have since told people that sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing at all. KO: I don’t recall the first time I appeared in court, but I remember like it was yesterday the first time I put a witness on the stand at trial. When I was a midlevel associate, I was assigned to join a team for a jury trial in state court that was scheduled to begin approximately six weeks later. Our client was the plaintiff, and my first witness was an individual who had overseen key aspects of the business relationship at issue. My goal with the direct examination was to lay the foundation for our damages case, which involved walking through the financial details of nearly two dozen reinsurance contracts for the jury. As I prepared for the examination, I spent hours picking the brains of the most seasoned trial lawyers at Cravath, who were incredibly gracious with their time and mentorship. Based on their advice, I formulated a direct examination built around a narrative of my witness’ experiences relevant to the trial, and sprinkled the narrative with the various financial details that I

had to be sure were in the record. This enabled me to turn what otherwise would have been a very dry examination into an opportunity to tell our story in a way that the jury would find interesting. It was a tremendous experience, and when I sat down, I knew that I was completely hooked on trying cases. LD: Gary, you’ve worked on a number of high-profile matters, including, most recently, for clients Epic Games and Qualcomm. Tell us your process in partnering with a client facing such complex challenges – could you describe one of those cases, discussing some of the key issues involved and how you addressed them? GB: When a case is important enough to affect the client’s business model, it demands the attention of senior management. This adds another layer in your responsibility to the client, particularly as you become embedded with the company to deeply understand the business and its goals. For both Epic and Qualcomm, I needed to be able to explain the strategy and potential consequences of each outcome, not just to the legal team, but to the business leaders as well. As a litigator, sometimes you deal with cases that are financially very significant but do not have a major strategic component for the company. But the Epic and Qualcomm cases had the potential to impact the very core of their business models. Yes, there was a lot of money involved, but the clients were principally concerned with how a decision could fundamentally alter the way they were able to operate. This made the Cravath team more than just litigators, but more comprehensive legal advisors with an eye on the clients’ broader and long-term interests. A challenge we faced in working with Epic was that we were brought on during the pandemic, and we didn’t know a single person there; as it turned out, we didn’t have a chance to meet any of the Epic people face to face until we were at trial. We went from zero to 120 in a year – getting up to speed so fast and not having the opportunity to visit their headquarters in North Carolina was a steep learning curve, and we also had to face two sophisticated and well-funded adversaries. Our experience in previous bet-the-company litigation allowed our team to keep our eyes on the task at hand and really focus on achieving the best possible outcome for this client we had never actually met. LD: Kevin, you have been counsel to household names such as Facebook, American Express and PG&E – could you describe some of your work for these clients? Similarly, would you also talk about some of the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

297

500 key challenges those clients had to surmount, and how you worked through those issues with them?

as well as the beneﬁts of Cravath’s rotation system in creating multidimensional litigation leaders?

KO: Being counsel to well-known clients, such as Facebook (Meta), doesn’t change any of the strategy or planning that goes into getting to know the client and its business, or determining what its idea of success might be. In Meta’s case, I am representing the company in an antitrust MDL involving claims brought by various groups of plaintiffs. While the identity of the defendant may attract more media attention, it does not change the fundamentals of sound litigation tactics and advice.

GB: I didn’t know anything about antitrust before coming to Cravath; it wasn’t something I studied in law school. Bob Joffe was my introduction to antitrust during my ﬁrst rotation, and I have worked on a number of antitrust matters since then, both as an associate and as a partner. Even now, antitrust is not the only thing I do; it is an important part of my practice, but not its entirety. It is a testament to the training we receive as associates that our lawyers, at all levels of seniority, have the ability to handle a wide range of complex issues across multiple practice areas – we think it’s something that makes Cravath genuinely unique. Those of us who have grown up at Cravath learned how to become leaders and litigators through the rotation system.

For American Express and PG&E, the challenges that came with representing them were vastly different – but both matters exemplified the type of complex and highstakes litigation that clients regularly bring to Cravath. Representing American Express in a seven week bench trial against the Department of Justice and subsequent appeal to the 2nd Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court involved a unique set of issues and preparation. Its win before the Supreme Court was a major victory for our client and has fundamentally shaped the way in which antitrust law is being applied, particularly in cases involving tech platforms. The antitrust lawsuit was originally brought by the DOJ and 17 state attorneys general challenging certain provisions in its merchant agreements; from the start of the investigation to the Supreme Court decision, the action spanned nearly a decade and challenged the core of the company’s business model. Partnering with PG&E was also a tremendously complex effort. I represented PG&E in every part of its litigation response to the 2017 and 2018 wildfires, and served as lead trial counsel in hundreds of lawsuits, including numerous putative class actions. It was one of the largest and most complex sets of mass tort litigations in recent years. Perhaps the most complex phase was the highly public Chapter 11 proceedings during 2019 and 2020. PG&E’s bankruptcy was the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, and we were tasked with resolving wildfire claims that the victims estimated to exceed $50B. I worked very closely with the firm’s Corporate Department, particularly my restructuring partner Paul Zumbro, on these matters. It was a true example of our multidisciplinary culture of client service, and I am proud that we were able to help lead the company out of Chapter 11 and ensure the victims were compensated. LD: There is an intense focus on antitrust right now. Could you talk about your current work in this area,

298

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

KO: I also hadn’t spent much time on antitrust before joining Cravath. I took a single course on it at NYU, and while I found it interesting, I had no idea I would end up spending so much of my time working on antitrust matters. Like others in our antitrust litigation practice, I was trained as a generalist and have a broad base of expertise – this is key to how I and other Cravath attorneys are able to bring a big-picture perspective to matters. We can be creative and flexible in approaching these issues because our rotation system gives us a strategic advantage by exposing associates to a wide range of skillsets. I think it’s also a big reason why clients trust us to handle these types of major matters: They know our lawyers bring a perspective that takes into account all aspects of potential litigation, as well as their fundamental business realities. LD: Looking back on your careers, what would you say are the distinctions in being able to litigate a single case versus overseeing a multifront litigation? What sorts of skills do you need to handle complex litigation effectively? GB: The strategy for preparing for a single battle is very different than the strategy for preparing for a broader war. When you are starting out and are working on one case, you can focus on finding the best outcome for maximizing success in that specific matter. But as you develop and become an advisor to the client on many fronts, the bigger picture may mean that the result of a single case is not the only end goal in a much deeper and broader relationship. As a partner to the client, you need to start thinking about how the actions you

500

IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE TRAINING WE RECEIVE AS ASSOCIATES THAT OUR LAWYERS, AT ALL LEVELS OF SENIORITY, HAVE THE ABILITY TO HANDLE A WIDE RANGE OF COMPLEX ISSUES ACROSS MULTIPLE PRACTICE AREAS. take in this specific litigation might intersect with other business goals. KO: Widening your perspective from a single case to multiple matters with sometimes competing interests requires you to have a detailed understanding of the entirety of that client’s litigation and regulatory portfolio, as well as a working knowledge of how they are defining success. In taking steps toward overseeing multifront litigation, you want to have the skills to be able to help manage and direct other aspects of a client’s business goals as well. That shift requires a close understanding of the company itself, which brings us back to the deep trust that clients must have in you as a partner. LD: Describe the relationship between the two of you as Co-Heads of the Litigation Department, and tell us some of your goals. GB: By necessity, it’s a good relationship. We came up in the same environment – as associates in Cravath’s rotation system – which has helped tremendously in how we approach and solve the problems that come across our desks. Kevin and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to run and improve the Litigation Department, and I am very happy to have somebody to help balance the workload. I find that we often agree on the issues that require our attention, and we are, of course, sounding boards for each other if we ever have tough questions. KO: We both agree that one of our main goals as CoHeads is to work together on maintaining Cravath’s historic commitment to building a strong platform of future talent. Cravath is its people, and our people create the culture. Our work-from-home experience throughout the pandemic has really demonstrated that the firm is much more than just a shared place of work – we want to continue fostering our culture of teamwork, collaboration and community. Particularly during these challenging times, I have been very grateful to have Gary as my partner in this important endeavor.

LD: Diversity and inclusion are considered priorities in the legal community in a fundamentally different way than a generation ago. What steps does Cravath take to ensure that diverse backgrounds are valued and respected? GB: Everyone here has a distinct point of view, and we are taking steps to ensure that people who come to Cravath understand that their views and perspectives are valued, and that their diverse backgrounds and experiences are integral to their success as lawyers. Diversity is also key to our successful representation of clients on complex matters requiring a variety of perspectives. We know we are better as a firm when people can come to work as their full selves. To that end, we do our best to offer support to – and a platform for – their voices. To share just one example, I have served as the partner liaison to our LGBTQ+ Affinity Group since its inception, and we have a number of different affinity groups at Cravath where associates and partners are able to connect in the workplace and speak up about the matters most important to them. KO: I agree completely with Gary. Diversity and inclusion are critical to making us all better lawyers and delivering the best service we can to our clients. We want to hire and retain law students who will grow to be outstanding lawyers, which means not only accessing the widest possible talent pool, but also cultivating an environment where our lawyers can receive the legal training, mentorship and support they need to be successful, no matter who they are. LD: If you weren’t a litigator at Cravath, what would you be doing? GB: I have no idea. I was an architecture major in college, but I was not very good at it, so I doubt I would have lasted long there. KO: At this point, I’m not sure I could see myself doing anything else. I truly love being a litigator.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

299

500 300

Todd Smith

Ann Beth Stebbins

SMITH LACIEN CHICAGO

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Thomas Sobol

Brian Stekloff

HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Sochia

Cate Stetson

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Audra J. Soloway

Bryan Stevenson

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

EQUAL JUSTICE MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Sonia Sotomayor

Theodore Stevenson

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

ALSTON & BIRD DALLAS

Grace Speights

Kosta Stojilkovic

MORGAN LEWIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lande Alexandra Spottswood

Jocelyn Strauber

VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Kalpana Srinivasan

Leo E. Strine Jr.

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL NEW YORK

T. Eiko Stange

Lary Stromfeld

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Arun Subramanian

Roland Telli

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

BARON & BUDD DALLAS

Diane Sullivan

Anita Wallace Thomas

WEIL PRINCETON, N.J.

NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA

Tara Sutton

Clarence Thomas

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

U.S. SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christina Swarns

John Thomas

INNOCENCE PROJECT NEW YORK

HICKS THOMAS HOUSTON

Bonny Sweeney

Vivian Lee Thoreen

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LOS ANGELES

Kate Swift

Monica Thurmond

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Quyen Ta

Sally Thurston

KING & SPALDING SAN FRANCISCO

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Germaine Tanner

Mary Touchstone

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

John C. Taylor

Robert I. Townsend III

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

301

Shannon Baldwin HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT (HOUSTON)

500

SHANNON BALDWIN FROM PRISON GUARD TO GRAND MARSHALL

of Houston’s Pride Parade, Judge Shannon Baldwin’s life has been a remarkable tale of quiet integrity, hard work and impact. Raised in Houston by a single mom, she joined the ROTC in high school, and the Army Reserves after graduation. Law enforcement was a clear path for her, as was service. But the shooting of an officer caused her to rethink her plan and enroll in law school. She spent two decades in prosecution and private practice at Baldwin Williams & Associates concentrating in criminal defense before deciding to run for Judge of Harris County Criminal Court at Law #4. She was elected in November 2018 and also presides over one of five SOBER courts, helping individuals with alcohol dependency issues. Baldwin was the first African American woman to run and preside as an out member of the LGBTQ+ community in Harris County. She remembers well her first day on the bench, a momentous day when all 19 African American women who ran for judgeships took their new posts. Folks would peer through the window into the courtroom and, in many instances for the first time, see someone presiding who looked like them. Lawdragon: Why did you become a lawyer? Shannon Baldwin: Over the years, I wished I had a great story to tell. I wish I could tell you that I was interested in Perry Mason, or maybe even the Matlock. I’ve got a funny story about how it came about, but I had no magic moment. I thought initially that I would be a police officer, and I went to undergrad at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville. Of course, there are a lot of prisons there. So a lot of students got jobs at the prison. It was a lucrative job to have as a college student so I got a job at the prison. My undergrad degree is in Law Enforcement & Police Science. I thought I was going to be a police officer, or something to that effect. But then one day I literally saw some news report where a police officer was shot. And I had a light bulb moment and said, “This is not for me.” LD: That’ll do it. JSB: I realized I’m not that person. And God bless them, we need them. But it was not me. I

PHOTO BY FELIX SANCHEZ

BY KATRINA DEWEY had served in the military and that did not even involve getting shot at. In that moment I think I was coming out of the school’s library and passed this bulletin board and I saw something that said LSAT Review. I peeled off the little ticket and I said, “Well, I guess I’m going to go to law school.” And I never looked back. LD: When you got into law school, how did you figure out what kind of law you wanted to practice, and kind of what your future looked like as a lawyer? JSB: Truly, I was drawn to criminal law from the beginning. And I knew that I would be a prosecutor at some point in time in my career. I was even the president of the Criminal Law Society. So I knew that would be a part, I just didn’t know how. I had not envisioned being where I am now. It’s just what I gravitated to, and it’s what I found I have a real passion for. LD: Did you practice criminal law once you got out of law school? SB: I did. In my third year, I was awarded a position with the Governor’s Internship Program. I got an internship at the Solicitor’s Office, it’s the equivalent to a misdemeanor prosecutor’s office here. They call their misdemeanor prosecutors “solicitors.” And so I interned there and it was a paid internship, which was fabulous. I got to do that in my third year and sort of got immersed in all things criminal law at that point. I was a prosecutor there for a while but went out into a private practice because I was young and such a risk taker. If I had I to do it all over again today, I wouldn’t have. I would’ve thought that planning for retirement was more important. But I wasn’t smart enough back then, so. LD: Few of us are. SB: Well, right, right. But you think, “I could make more money,” and it was substantially more money if you do that versus just working for the county. But that was Georgia. I was brand spanking new with my Georgia license. I later moved back home to Houston. And when I did that, I knew that being a prosecutor was a way of sort of getting a crash course in law. I needed to have that update if you will, so I was a prosecutor in Texas as well so that I could get some quick trial experience.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

303

500

SHE REMEMBERS WELL HER FIRST DAY ON THE BENCH, A MOMENTOUS DAY WHEN ALL 19 AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN WHO RAN FOR JUDGESHIPS TOOK THEIR NEW POSTS. FOLKS WOULD PEER THROUGH THE WINDOW INTO THE COURTROOM AND, IN MANY INSTANCES FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE SOMEONE PRESIDING WHO LOOKED LIKE THEM. LD: Also practicing as a prosecutor for a while, it kind of gets you in the stream of going before the judges, who the players are. And so, it kind of gets you back in speaking the language of that court. SB: I really knew that it would be a crash course in Texas law because I hadn’t practiced in Texas. But I found that I did not enjoy it, as well. The market is really different from Georgia to Texas. Maybe had I still been in Georgia, I could have gotten back into it and even made a career out of it. The climate is different per office and maybe had I had an opportunity somewhere else I would have liked it better, but it was not for me. LD: So then you moved to private practice at your own firm, Baldwin Williams? SB: Yes, and did criminal defense. I practiced for more than 22 years before I became a judge. LD: You really saw what was going on and how people were being treated. Are there any memories you have of those times that inspired you when you decided to run for the bench? SB: Definitely. There were, honestly, and particularly in Harris County, situations where the atmosphere was routinely – I don’t want to call it hostile – but always just an unnecessary uphill battle. It was difficult to feel as if you were working amongst your colleagues. And I would laugh to myself and say the defense counsel really don’t enjoy much more respect than the defendant. LD: Wow. SB: Just a hair bit more. LD: So maybe if not hostile, certainly not collegial.

304

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

SB: Not at all. There’s always nice people, those who understand how to be adversarial without being rude and without being disrespectful. But there were so many that didn’t. And it just transcended, it passed down. And, I’m really sad to say it, but it was always based on the culture that the judge created. So the tougher the judge, then DAs know that the defense counsel has nowhere to go. They don’t have to be reasonable when they’re negotiating with you. They can say and do what they want, and they’ll always have support from the judge. LD: You really saw firsthand, intricately, how that was playing out? SB: Definitely. I’ll tell you this, in taking up that challenge, I was one of a million in Harris County in that predicament. But it meant that I needed to sort of learn the inner workings of the county. I had to garner better relationships. It meant I had to dig in, and really get good relationships with prosecutors. The good, the bad, and ugly, all of the above. As well as judges. And I wasn’t much of a social person in the workplace. But I learned that I needed to step that aspect up, and it worked. The climate was probably still the same, it’s just that I had better relationships with people in better places so they would respect me more. Also, I was never shy about setting a case for trial. You had to be someone who, not that you’re feared, but to show that you weren’t afraid. They don’t fear you, but they know that you’re not afraid of pressing the issue and going to trial. Even if that meant we would lose and lose bad, those things happen. And sometimes you’re supposed to. But they also know that you give a good fight. And that’s all it took to, in a sense, earn their

500

respect. It took time to cultivate those relationships but I was intentional about it. I had to sit back and get some help, and take some advice from other people. I began to really watch. And I really studied the craft. And it wasn’t until when you kind of come out of it, and you think, “Okay, now I’m a real player in this situation.” You start thinking, “Now I need to figure out how to change this.” LD: I’m starting to see the pieces connect because you have so many relationships and such a network, and were such a leader when you ran for judge. Because of how you put together your network to be successful as a criminal defense lawyer in that environment, it sounds like you used many of the same skills to be an effective candidate for judge. SB: Well, one thing’s for sure: I was not a stranger for having to dig in and work hard. And my expectation was to win because I wanted to. I hoped for it, really worked hard for it, but I had low expectations because it had historically been nearly impossible. Very few people were successful at it. It was all Republican. There was not going to be anyone successful from another party. Just wasn’t going to ever happen. And there was no light shining at the end of the tunnel telling me that this was the year that it would happen. But I knew I had nothing to lose at that point. I had done, at that point, everything I thought I wanted to do, meaning I had tried a capital murder case. So this was like, “OK, you’ve done what you can do in a criminal court. You need to either figure out something else to do, or figure out something more challenging, or take on the cause.” And it just made sense. Change the system. LD: And so, in taking on the cause, you made your decision. And then how did you come to know of the other 18 who were making their decision? SB: We didn’t. The only person I knew was running at the same time was my law partner, LaShawn Williams. And that’s because she was my law partner. Once I decided, I had to go to her and say, “Hey, this is something I need to do.” And I said, “I think you should, too.” It’s funny, in our firm I led all of the criminal stuff, she handled all of the civil stuff. I was always second chair to her, she was always second chair to me. So I was like, “I think you ought to run for a civil bench. Let’s just go do this.” She thought about it, not long, and came back and said, “You’re absolutely right. Let’s do it.” And here we are. We didn’t know. None of us knew

until we walked in the room after the primaries and you looked up and you thought, “Wow!” In a county that maybe had one or two African American women on the bench at one time, we have 19 in this room. It’s unheard of. LD: It’s incredible. Since you’ve been on the bench, is there a memory or an experience that really continues to speak to you confirming, “Oh, this is why I did this. This is why I’m glad I’m on this bench?” SB: There are probably a lot of situations like that. In fact, I run a SOBER court. In the SOBER court recently I’ve had some very job satisfying moments where you see people coming in and they’re in shambles, clearly addicted. And everything about their lives is in shambles. And they commit to the program, sometimes we’re dragging them through. But they commit to the program and they come out on the other side and now they’re about to graduate. I had one in my last SOBER court setting who almost had me in tears. I just thought, “This is what this is for.” When you can see them turn it around, you find that alcohol or alcoholism is just the byproduct of whatever else is going on. And when that light finally clicks and they start thinking, “Oh, it’s this toxic relationship. And now I have a better relationship with my kids.” When you see all of that fall into place, you think, “Who knew? Who knew I could be a part of something that changes, not just this person’s life, but that of his entire family.” LD: The inter-connectedness of all of it. SB: It helped a lot that I had experience on both sides. Again, the climate I often encountered was like the judge was the other prosecutor in the room. And it would wear on you. Every day is a new level of exhaustion that was beyond, “I got 10 clients today.” It’s, “This is the exhaustion of just being beat down,” and constantly having to carry those rocks on your back, unnecessarily so. LD: You’re supposed to have an opponent and a neutral, right? SB: Right. And it wasn’t that. You’re playing tug of war with two people on the other side pulling against you. And over a period of time, something had to give. And I did know that in making that decision it was I either had to run for judge or get out of this business altogether. LD: What do you find most meaningful about the 19, and your role in it, in creating a more just system?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

305

500 306

Max Tribble

Kathi Vidal

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

WINSTON & STRAWN MENLO PARK

Richard Trobman

Jim Walden

LATHAM NEW YORK

WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK

Richard Truesdell Jr.

Robert Walters

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Lisa Tsai

Johnny Ward

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

WARD SMITH & HILL LONGVIEW, TEXAS

Jeroen van Kwawegen

Stephen Weiss

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

SEEGER WEISS RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Gregory Varallo

Tony West

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ WILMINGTON, DEL.

UBER SAN FRANCISCO

Krishna Veeraraghavan

Lexie White

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Liza Velazquez

Conlee S. Whiteley

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

Alan Vickery

Beth Wilkinson

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I UNDERSTAND I’M A PART OF A BIGGER THING. I TOTALLY EMBRACE THAT. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS THAT I ALSO FEEL LIKE I HAVEN’T REALLY DONE ANYTHING SPECIAL. AND BY THAT I MEAN, SHOULDN’T THIS JUST BE THE NORM? SB: I’m reminded of when we all fi rst took the bench, and I think we all had a common experience. And that is that you’re sitting on the bench for the first time, or maybe within that first week or so, and there were people coming by and looking through the windows. Looking at you. Staring and looking like, “I just had to see it for myself.” And also people in the audience who may have been a party or defendant in another court, who wanted to come up and say, “Hello, I just wanted to speak to you.” All of a sudden the courts were not the worst place in the world that you could be. LD: That’s powerful. SB: It wasn’t the worst place. Obviously it’s not a pleasant place, but it wasn’t the worst place you could be. No one’s walking on pins and needles. You need only come in with the same level of respect that you expect. That what you give, and you’re going to get it back. And know that as long as that is the case, you’re likely to walk out of here that day. Period. LD: A whole new day. SB: A whole new day. That’s funny, that was the song I think they played when we were coming out, when they were swearing us in. A brand new day. And it was true. Everybody talked about the difference in the feelings that we all could breathe a little bit better. LD: What you’ve done, it could be seen as an assembly of little things, but it’s such a big thing. It’s a huge thing and – SB: It’s huge, but not. Here’s the thing that’s so funny about it though. I understand I’m a part of a bigger thing. I totally embrace that. The other side of it is that I also feel like I haven’t really done anything special. And by that I mean, shouldn’t this just be the norm? LD: Yes. It should.

SB: I appreciate all of the accolades, and it makes you feel real good. But at the same time, this should be the norm. It should not be that in 2018, 2019, we were seeing these changes for the ﬁrst time. And that’s the other side of it. So yes, I fully accept jumping up and down for joy and saying, “This is great. This is wonderful.” But what we did was what should have been normal, that’s why it’s important. LD: Right. And it shouldn’t have taken until 2018. SB: That’s my lifetime for this to happen. LD: Exactly. And now you can know at least in your daughter’s life, it’s going to look normal, right? SB: It’s going to look normal. She knows so many judges, and she was a campaign baby. She went everywhere with me. So a judge is just going to be no big deal to her. LD: And for her and others to have seen so many extraordinary women taking a risk. SB: You’re right about the risk, but I don’t think we understood the risk at the time. I think everybody just made what they thought were calculated decisions that were best for their lives at that time. And then it comes together and it became something bigger. Certainly with the 19 of us, it really became risky. I still think we’re targets and I still think there’s legislation right now that’s being passed, quite frankly, and it’s intended to ensure that that does not happen again. Sad to say. LD: The people who would try to shut down equality and voices and representation, they’re hanging on to a past and they will work very hard to keep it. SB: We are deﬁnitely seeing it. But I feel some level of hope we’ll come out on the other side of it, and in the end see it in a better place.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

307

500

Bart Williams

Michael Wolitzer

PROSKAUER LOS ANGELES

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Gwyn Williams

Michael Woronoff

LATHAM BOSTON

KIRKLAND LOS ANGELES

LaShawn A. Williams

Debra J. Wyman

HARRIS COUNTY COURTS HOUSTON

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Milton Williams

Debra Wong Yang

WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Shawn Williams

Bruce Yannett

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Shean Williams

Jonathan Youngwood

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM ATLANTA

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Steven Williams

Taurie Zeitzer

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Donna Wilson

Damien Zoubek

MANATT LOS ANGELES

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS NEW YORK

Jamie Wine

Paul H. Zumbro

LATHAM NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Marc Wolinsky WACHTELL NEW YORK 308

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 24 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Advocates for Workplace Fairness

Congratulations to Adam Klein, Wendi Lazar, Tammy Marzigliano & Laurence Moy for inclusion in the 2021 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America

Outten & Golden focuses on a global scale on advising and representing individuals and groups in employment, partnership, and related workplace matters. The firm counsels individuals on employment and severance agreements; handles complex compensation and benefits issues (including matters involving I.R.C. Sections 409A and 280G, bonuses, commissions, and stock and option agreements and awards), and advises professional partners (including accountants, doctors, and lawyers) with contractual and strategic issues.

Our nine practice groups

It also represents employees with a wide variety of claims, including discrimination and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, race, disability, national origin, religion, and age, as well as retaliation, whistleblower, and contract claims. Outten & Golden is also at the forefront of family leave issues and veterans’ workplace rights. The firm handles some of the largest class action and impact litigations in the United States involving a wide range of employment issues, including economic exploitation, gender- and race-based discrimination, wage-andhour violations, violations of the WARN Act, and other systemic workers’ rights issues.

Adam T. Klein is the Deputy Managing Partner of Outten & Golden, Founder and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Class Practice Area, and Co-Chair of its Class Action Practice Group.

• Executives & Professionals • Financial Services • Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination • Family Responsibilities & Disabilities Discrimination

• Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & Queer Workplace Rights • Discrimination & Retaliation • Whistleblower Retaliation • Class & Collective Actions • WARN Act

Wendi S. Lazar is a Partner of Outten & Golden, Co-Head of the Firm’s Individual Practice Area, and Co-Chair of its Executives and Professionals Practice Group. Tammy Marzigliano is a partner of Outten & Golden, Co-Chair of both Financial Services Practice Group and its Whistleblower and Retaliation Practice Group. Laurence S. Moy is Deputy Managing Partner, and co-chairs the firm’s Financial Services Industry Practice Group.

New York • San Francisco • Washington, DC www.outtengolden.com