Lawdragon 15 Year Anniversary Issue

T H E

1 5 T H

Y E A R

A N N I V E R S A R Y

THE GLORIOUS DEFIANTS

I S S U E

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.

INSIDE 15 YEARS OF LAWDRAGON: A JOURNEY ANATOMY OF A SEXUAL ABUSE PRACTICE LAW FIRM DIVERSITY AND HBCUS OUR NEW GUIDE TO LEADERS IN LITIGATION FINANCE SIGRID MCCAWLEY ON TAKING DOWN JEFFREY EPSTEIN

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 2020 Leading Lawyers in America, including Robbins Geller attorneys: Darren Robbins, Samuel Rudman, Randall Baron, Daniel Drosman, Rachel Jensen, David Mitchell, Debra Wyman, Shawn Williams, Spencer Burkholz, and Aelish Marie Baig.

The Firm also lauds Paul Geller for being recognized as a “Legend� after ten years as a Leading Lawyer, and Patrick Coughlin, who was elevated permanently to the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

Recovering Assets.

Reforming Business.

Restoring Confidence. www.rgrdlaw.com | 1-800-449-4900

Susman Godfrey 2020 Lawdragons

Barry Barnett

Shawn Raymond

Vineet Bhatia

Katie Sammons

Jacob Buchdahl

Steven Sklaver

Bill Carmody

Kalpana Srinivasan

Erica Harris

Arun Subramanian

Geoffrey Harrison Neal Manne

Max Tribble

Brian Melton

Mark Wawro

Shawn Rabin

Lexie White

Lawdragon Hall of Fame Steve Susman Houston

Lee Godfrey

New York

Seattle

Parker Folse Los Angeles

{ CONTENTS }

18

16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 18 HOW TO BUILD A BETTER LAW FIRM Selendy & Gay achieves diversity by attracting top-tier talent.

28 RIGHT, WRONG & THE BUSINESS LEADERS BETWIXT & BETWEEN A discussion with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann on Corporate Governance.

42 A PANDEMIC, A HOT MARKET AND “ALL SYSTEMS GO” Cravath’s generalist and versatile nature has kept the capital markets practice white-hot in 2020.

54

51 AN URGENT LEGACY Cravath’s program at Fisk University reflects the type of long-term commitment required to have lasting change in future decades.

54 GIVING VOICE TO THE SILENCED: ANATOMY OF A SEXUAL ABUSE PRACTICE AT TAYLOR & RING A discussion with Natalie Weatherford and Dave Ring on Taylor & Ring’s renowned practice helping victims.

64 SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED Therium proves the merits of litigation funding – just ask some UK postal providers who found justice with their help.

70 LAW FIRM SO REAL How Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila built on the power of possibility.

75 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL FINANCE

Our inaugural guide dedicated to the role of legal finance in law firms worldwide also presents 10 leaders in financial advising. Featuring:

70 4

77 Jessica Woodhouse of Burford Capital 81 Patrick Dempsey of Therium 85 David Kerstein of Validity Finance 87 Aaron Katz of Parabellum Capital 89 Mark King of Harbour Litigation 91 Andrew Saker of Omni Bridgeway 93 Andy Lundberg of Burford Capital

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

{ CONTENTS }

77

99 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING

These chaotic and unpredictable times require innovative thinking and new approaches from these titans of legal advice, including crisis communicators, marketing mavens, management advisors and recruiters. Featuring:

101 Michael Coston of Coston Consulting 105 Jennifer Johnson of Calibrate Legal 109 Joe Macrae of Macrae 111 Vijay Luthra of Lippman Jungers 113 Jesse Dungan of Infinite Global 117 Tim Maltin of Maltin PR 119 Jon Lindsey of Major Lindsey

123 THE HALL OF FAME

Our presentation of the 41 new inductees to the Hall of Fame includes features on Steve Yerrid, Margaret “Peggy” Zwisler, Christine Varney and Jonathan Schiller.

101

155 THE LEGENDS

The 30 newcomers to the industry’s most elite group are strikingly diverse in true Lawdragon fashion. Featuring a Q&A with Randi McGinn.

168 LAWDRAGON AT 15 YEARS: A JOURNEY

Please join us on a trip to re-live our long road of challenges and achievements. After all, we couldn’t have done it without you.

140

164

6

198 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA The talent of the honorees in our 15th guide is impossible to beat – and more vital than ever in an era of unprecedented uncertainty. Featuring:

201 Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller 208 Geoffrey Harrison of Susman Godfrey 216 Paul Geller of Robbins Geller 224 Johnine Barnes of Greenberg Traurig 230 Richard Sayles of Bradley 236 LaBarron Boone of Beasley Allen 241 Philip H. Corboy Jr. of Corboy & Demetrio 244 Karen Dyer of Cadwalader 250 Jeannemarie O’Brien of Wachtell 254 Larry Rogers Jr. of Power Rogers 262 Ted Leopold of Cohen Milstein 268 Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss 272 Michael Kelly of Walkup Melodia 278 Kalpana Srinivasan of Susman Godfrey 284 Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer 290 John Thomas of Hicks Thomas

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

We are proud to congratulate four of our partners — William T. “Bill” Reid IV, P. Jason Collins, Lisa S. Tsai, and Eric D. Madden — on being named to the 2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

Reid Collins is a nationally recognized trial boutique that prosecutes high-stakes, complex business litigation on a success-fee basis. Our team of trial attorneys includes former federal prosecutors, judicial law clerks, entrepreneurs, and forensic accountants.

Reid Collins represents bankruptcy trustees, creditor committees, and offshore liquidators in investigating and prosecuting claims against directors and officers, third-party professionals, and financial institutions. Reid Collins also represents public companies, fundmanagers, investment funds, and investors in pursuing claims against global investment banks, top-tier law firms, accounting firms, and other culpable third parties.

reidcollins.com

XXX

We are a firm of internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and strategic advisors known for our creative, aggressive, and efficient pursuit of success for our clients.

Over two decades, Boies Schiller Flexner has established a record of taking on and winning complex, groundbreaking, and cross-border matters in diverse circumstances and industries. We regularly take cases to trial and we prepare each one accordingly from the start. We have the experience, judgment, and vision to develop the arguments that achieve favorable outcomes—whether those arguments are needed inside or outside of the courtroom.

With offices located throughout the United States and in London, we operate as one firm with a seamless approach to building the most skillful and cost-effective team possible for every matter.

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

David Boies Chairman Lawdragon Hall of Fame

Jonathan Schiller Managing Partner Lawdragon Hall of Fame

Natasha Harrison Managing Partner

Harlan Levy Partner

Sigrid McCawley Partner

Stephen Zack Partner Lawdragon Hall of Fame

We congratulate our Lawdragons on their achievements

Issue 22 LAWDRAGON INC. PUBLISHER/CHIEF

305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013

EXECUTIVE OFFICER K atrina D ewey katrina @ lawdragon . com

© Lawdragon Inc. 2020 All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part without written

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE

permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all

PRESIDENT

solicitation, reprint and plaque requests from services

J ohn R yan

that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” email. These

john @ lawdragon . com

are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you purchase any desired services from Carlton Dyce at

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS

carlton@lawdragon.com.

DEVELOPMENT AND SALES C arlton D yce carlton @ lawdragon . com

ART DIRECTOR S tephanie B lackman sb @ blackmandesign . net

ASSISTANT EDITORS J ames L angford james @ lawdragon . com

A lison P reece alison @ lawdragon . com

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

For reprints or other promotional materials, contact Carlton Dyce at carlton@lawdragon.com.

You can also purchase products at the Lawdragon Shop at www.lawdragon.com/lawdragon-shop.

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT M ichelle F ox michelle @ lawdragon . com

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY L aura B arisonzi , T om C allins , A my C antrell , J ustin C lemons , G regg D elman , K aycee J oubert , E li M eir K aplan , M ichelle N olan , M olly P an , J ennifer P otheiser , J osh R itchie , M ichael S exton P rinted in C anada

10

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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

“a dealmaker” —Chambers USA 2020

Christopher A. Seeger

A founding partner of Seeger Weiss LLP, Christopher Seeger has led some of the most complex, groundbreaking, and high-profile litigations in the United States, including the NFL Concussion Litigation, where as lead counsel and chief negotiator he helped obtain an uncapped settlement valued

New Jersey 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660

at more than $1 billion on behalf of thousands of retired NFL players and their families, and the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, where as co-lead counsel he represents over 34,000 counties and cities grappling with the medical, social, and legal consequences of the opioid crisis.

New York 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005

se e ge r we i s s . c om

Pennsylvania 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC salutes this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America and congratulates our own honorees: 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 Antitrust | Civil Rights & Employment | Complex Tort Litigation | Consumer Protection Employee Benefits / ERISA | Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling | Human Rights | Public Client Securities Litigation & Investor Protection | Whistleblower / False Claims Act

202.408.4600 | cohenmilstein.com CHICAGO, IL | NEW YORK, NY | PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL PHILADELPHIA, PA | RALEIGH, NC | WASHINGTON, DC

W

{

}

A NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR

HEN YOU DO SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMES, IT REALLY BEGINS TO FEEL LIKE BUSINESS AS USUAL. THAT’S THE CASE WITH THIS MAGAZINE. ONCE AGAIN, WE’VE SUCCESSFULLY PARTNERED WITH LAW FIRMS, LAWYERS, CONSULTANTS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN THE LEGAL SPACE – NOT TO MENTION OUR OWN TEAM OF SALESPEOPLE, EDITORS, PHOTOGRAPHERS AND DESIGNERS – TO PRODUCE THE INDUSTRY’S LEADING PRINT PUBLICATION. ALWAYS A CHALLENGE, ALWAYS ENJOYABLE, OCCASIONALLY FRUSTRATING, BUT BY 2020 SOMETHING OF A ROUTINE, ONE WE FEEL LUCKY TO EXPERIENCE EACH YEAR. Of course, in many ways that’s hardly the case for this magazine – our first publication produced entirely in a global pandemic. The challenges we faced in getting this edition out are slight compared to the vast range faced by frontline workers, along with countless businesses that have and will continue to face far more dire circumstances. The tragedy and toll of these events, rather than the procedural mechanics or financial constraints they imposed, are the melancholy playlist to this latest print effort. For that, a comfort resulting from the loyal support of many of you holding this magazine, we feel luckier than ever.

The new paradigms and legal uncertainty created by the pandemic infuse many of the features and profiles in this edition. So do the more intractable dilemmas that made America something of a tinderbox this year, most notably the ills of racial and gender inequality. Selendy & Gay’s efforts to build an inclusive firm from the ground up; Cravath’s partnership with an HBCU, Fisk University, to reach more diverse student populations earlier in their academic careers; and the heartening story of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, the first major law firm led by an African American woman, all receive our careful attention in these pages. So do the sexual abuse practice at Taylor & Ring and the work of Boies Schiller partner Sigrid McCawley to litigate on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

We’ll end by saying that 2020 is anything but “business as usual” for us because, as many of you know, it is also our 15 year anniversary, a milestone of which we are proud. We hope that you’ll spend some time leafing through the photo essay and feature “15 Years: A Journey.” There are some interesting historical facts, some humor and, yes, even some bragging. But mostly it presents a message we typically leave here: Thank you for taking this journey with us.

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

16

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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

“Brilliant lawyers with courtroom savvy.”

— BENCHMARK LITIGATION

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

18

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

IN JUST TWO YEARS , Selendy & Gay has

carved a new path for elite law firms, showing that firms can build an inclusive, values-driven team while bringing in billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements.

That’s a goal on the forefront for many firms these days as they grapple with a way forward on a number of fronts.

The breakout litigation firm has focused on creating a structurally-inclusive culture fused with fresh philosophies and data-driven techniques to attract diverse talent. And, while the

HOW TO BUILD A BETTER LAW FIRM

BY ALISON PREECE

Selendy & Gay achieves diversity by attracting top-tier talent

Se le nd y & G a y ’s Jor da n We a t h e r w ax

firm is only a couple years old, much can be gleaned from their strategies to retain that talent for the long-term.

Selendy & Gay is only interested in the very best legal talent. They want incredibly smart people who love the law as much as they do, and are hungry to invest the time and effort it takes to build a robust practice and get outstanding results for clients.

Top-tier talent, in turn, will want to surround themselves with others who are equally smart, driven, and good at what they do – and that all holds true for diverse talent.

In fact, research suggests that diverse talent may place a premium on firms with established, successful track records. Studies have shown women to be more risk-adverse than men when it comes to their careers, and therefore drawn to more credentialed firms. Fortunately, Selendy & Gay has quickly proven themselves to be formidable players in the complex commercial litigation space, scoring successful verdicts and settlements since their founding.

PH OTO S P RO V ID E D B Y T H E FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

19

In recent years, the firm has secured a head-spinning $45B in recoveries for their clients, in a near-even mix of plaintiff and defense work. They won more than $800M for the Federal Housing Finance Agency in a residential mortgage-backed securities fraud case against Nomura and RBS; beat back $500M in patent claims against a biotech company brought by Big Pharma; and successfully fought $300M in RICO claims brought against McKinsey & Company over their Chapter 11 disclosures, to name just a handful of their successes.

Selendy & Gay is also a shining example in the legal industry of using progressive policies to build an inclusive culture that doesn’t just

excellence. “We asked ourselves, ‘Who do we want to start a law firm with?’” says founding partner Jennifer Selendy. “‘Who do we most respect and admire and want to work with?’”

The result happened to be a partnership that was over half female, with strong LGBTQ representation.

As they continued to build their team of litigators, the partnership focused on research and data. This involved reviewing studies on implicit bias and employing techniques to overcome it, and looking at the burdens that fall disproportionately onto female and minority lawyers, such as childcare.

The founding partners also considered the

The firm has been gender-balanced and richly diverse from the start. “We were a more diverse partnership from moment one, which I think speaks volumes to the incoming lawyers who consider coming to work for us,” says Selendy. Just as talent attracts talent, diversity attracts diversity. celebrate diversity, but harnesses that spectrum of talent for greater wins in the courtroom.

While progress has certainly been made, many law firms continue their sluggish climb towards gender parity and racial diversity. Women, who have been attending law school in equal numbers as men for the last several decades, still lag behind in terms of both pay and partnership positions. Women make up roughly 20 percent of firm equity partnerships across the United States and earn on average 80 percent of what their male counterparts are paid, according to the ABA. The industry fares even worse when it comes to lawyers of color, who constitute just 9.5 percent of partners according to the 2019 National Association of Law Placement Report on Diversity in US Law Firms. The study further reveals that less than 2 percent of partners are African American, with a measly 0.75 percent of partnership positions held by African American women.

How do we bridge the gap? How do we continue bringing diverse attorneys into the ranks?

And once they’re there, how do we lower attrition rates?

When Selendy & Gay’s founding partners left Big Law (most came from Quinn Emanuel) to form their trailblazing firm in 2018, diversity was more of a natural byproduct of their pursuit of 20

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

many studies that demonstrate the increased effectiveness of diverse teams. “We’re very data driven and we’re very practical,” says Selendy.

“We looked at studies showing better boards of directors, better decision making, and better problem solving when you have diverse perspectives.”

The firm has been gender-balanced and richly diverse from the start. “We were a more diverse partnership from moment one, which I think speaks volumes to the incoming lawyers who consider coming to work for us,” says Selendy.

Just as talent attracts talent, diversity attracts diversity.

What’s exciting about Selendy & Gay is that they’re managing to attract both – top-tier talent which also happens to reflect the diversity of the broader population.

“I chose Selendy & Gay because I wanted to practice at a litigation shop that takes on difficult legal issues, and is always prepared to litigate to the fullest extent necessary for its clients,” says associate Jordan Weatherwax. “I also wanted a high level of responsibility and meaningful experience as early as possible in my career.

The firm has delivered on all fronts.”

Weatherwax’s practice is a mix of white collar and complex commercial litigation. He’s currently representing an individual accused of

KA

Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS

Jennifer Selendy

sanctions violations, and is working for hedge funds and monoline insurers suing for various breaches of contract.

Showcasing another aspect of Selendy & Gay that attracts the best young talent, Weatherwax is also handling a timely pro bono suit – a case against the New York Board of Elections in which he and his colleagues are urging a federal court to change New York State’s absentee ballot verification requirements in time for the 2020 election.

The substantive work available to incoming associates is a natural draw for sought-after talent. Selendy & Gay is a fast-paced litigation firm that unflinchingly jumps into the ring with the heaviest-weight defense firms, making it attractive for ambitious young litigators of all backgrounds. However, that same upside can dissuade certain recruits.

“Litigation hasn’t always attracted as many women and diverse lawyers in the same numbers,” says Selendy, due both to the adversarial nature of the work and lifestyle factors such as 22

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

long, unpredictable hours and frequent travel.

One aspect of the solution is philosophical, as the partnership works to redefine what success means in their profession. For lawyers in Selendy’s generation, success was defined quite narrowly as securing a partnership position in one of the Big Law firms. If you didn’t make partner, you failed.

“We need to erase the idea that you’ve failed if you join Big Law only to decide that you don’t want to work these long hours, you want to have time with your kids, you want to travel less, you want to do government service work or public service work exclusively – that self discovery is everything,” says Selendy.

At Selendy & Gay, new recruits understand that they are getting into the foxhole with a tight-knit group that will always support them, no matter which path they ultimately choose for themselves.

“That helps attract more people who may be super, super talented, but may be unsure if this is what they want at the end of the day,” says Selendy. “They’re willing to come and give us a try because they know wherever they end up, we are going to be their colleagues. We are going to support them throughout their career and be rooting for them.”

As their positive track record grows, they notice, so does their interest from diverse (and exceptionally talented) young lawyers. “Now that we’ve had some success and we’re walking the walk, the pool of lawyers that we’re drawing from is really impressive,” says Selendy. “We don’t take it for granted. A diverse team is going to bring more ideas and more creative thinking to the very complex problems that we have to solve for clients.”

The small size of the firm also helps in this regard – they have a single New York office (though they are now working remotely) with 12 partners and around 35 associates. That’s a lean team for the heft and quality of work they’re doing, which means no one gets hired just to sweat away endless hours on document review among countless ranks of others doing the same.

Each associate is quickly immersed in the team, contributing to matters in substantive ways.

“We encourage all lawyers to have a stake in the case right from the beginning,” says Selendy. “I want the junior-most person on the team thinking about the issues that I’m thinking about and worrying about. What are our trial themes

David Flugman

The moment speaks to another crucial philosophy of the firm when it comes to attracting diverse talents, which is their focus on values. That focus is seen not only in the management style and culture of inclusion, but also in their caseload.

24

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

going to be? What is our adversary going to argue against us? How do we reconcile sometimes very challenging client goals or perspectives?”

Associates who love the law as much as the rest of the Selendy & Gay attorneys are thrilled to jump into the deep end of cases like this, working alongside the experienced and creative minds of the partners on solving interesting, complex problems.

The smaller size also promotes a nimbleness in the firm, enabling them to adopt progressive practices that often get mired in red tape at larger firms. “If we think there’s an initiative we can adopt that will make us be better, then we do it,” says David Flugman, a partner at Selendy who helms the firm’s diversity initiatives.

Earlier this year, Flugman started speaking with his partners about including gender pronouns in email signatures at the firm, in support of transgender and non-binary individuals.

“We brought it to our partnership in a meeting, and within two weeks we rolled it out,” says Flugman, who says a big part of the conversation was the educational aspect. For people who have never had to correct others on which pronoun they prefer, they may not understand the difficulty of doing so, nor the feelings of isolation that can crop up. Therefore they might not appreciate what a difference it makes to have this kind of firm-wide policy.

“With this initiative, we’re creating an environment where it is the norm for people to proactively identify the pronouns they like to be called by, so that it encourages people who are transgender or nonbinary to feel welcome to do the same,” says Flugman.

It’s a great example of a simple change in a firm’s diversity infrastructure that can have a profound impact. It speaks to the partnership’s emphasis on creating a culture that is progressive and inclusive – both because it’s the right thing to do from a human perspective, and the smart thing to do from a business perspective.

“There are all kinds of important reasons for somebody who’s transgender or nonbinary to have that freedom and feel that flexibility,” says Flugman. “When someone feels more comfortable and more valued as a person, it only increases productivity.”

Bold clarity surrounding their values, coupled with their nimble size, also positions the firm to respond quickly and meaningfully to larger societal events and issues.

RECOGNIZED EXPERTS IN PR, BRANDING AND CONTENT FOR THE LEGAL SECTOR… … AT Y O U R S E R V I C E

NEW YORK

SAN FRANCISCO

LONDON

INFINITEGLOBAL.COM

CHICAGO

Following the killing of George Floyd this spring, the firm’s reaction was swift and unequivocal.

“The firm almost immediately held an all-hands town hall in which we discussed numerous ways the firm could contribute to racial justice causes,” says Weatherwax. Participation wasn’t required, but 100 people, attorneys and staff, attended.

“The managing partners allowed me and another Black associate to lead the meeting,” says Weatherwax, “and they listened carefully to our recommendations.

“The spring was a very difficult time for me and other Black people around the country, so it was helpful to feel supported by Selendy & Gay.” The moment speaks to another crucial philosophy of the firm when it comes to attracting diverse talent, which is their focus on values.

That focus is seen not only in the management style and culture of inclusion, but also in their caseload.

“It’s very deliberate how we go about choosing our cases, particularly on the plaintiff side,” says Flugman. “It’s a real blessing to be able to choose to take positions and represent clients in litigation to effectuate positive ends, which often flow disproportionately to minorities and other underserved American communities.”

One example is their focus on climate change litigation, such as the pro bono representation of clean energy advocacy group Vote Solar regarding the future of customer-generated solar power in Utah, in which Selendy partner Josh Margolin is working to establish a fair purchase price for solar exports to incentivize their widespread use.

They are also representing the American Federation of Teachers and individual plaintiffs in a case against the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for their gross mismanagement of two loan forgiveness programs designed to encourage students to enter public service with a promise of relief from crushing debt.

“More than 90 percent of the people that applied for this loan forgiveness got denied,” explains Flugman. “The issues here disproportionately impact people of color and women.

Seven of our eight individual plaintiffs in the case were women, and the majority of the AFT members are women.” After graduation, the statistics show that women are repaying their loans more slowly than men do, in part because of the gender pay gap. “In terms of the racial impact, statistics show that Black and Latinx stu26

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

dent loan borrowers have to take on more debt than their white counterparts due to historical systemic issues and gaps in wealth.”

While working to correct systemic inequalities through their legal work, the firm continues to turn their gaze inwards, celebrating their successes but also forever determined to do better.

“We’re not doing as well as we’d like on race,” says Selendy, referring to the lack of racial diversity in their partnership ranks. They do, however, have a significantly diverse associate base, with over 30 percent identifying as people of color.

And because they’re a small firm where associates get high-level experience, every voice is listened to, and the culture and policies all promote inclusiveness, they’re better positioned than many firms to develop a diverse partnership in the coming years.

“The most important value that I think we share is our commitment to constantly be evolving, innovating, educating and learning,” says Flugman.

Flugman, who is gay, has found a lot of value in connecting with other LGBTQ lawyers through organizations such as the National LGBT Bar Association. “I’ve found that one of my greatest strengths in terms of my ability to connect with people is in that community,” says Flugman. He encourages his colleagues in other marginalized communities to “use their diversity as a strength, as a business opportunity,” through things like networking and participating in panel discussions.

“We encourage our associates to choose some type of conference or event every year,” says Flugman. “We pay for them to go, and someone from our marketing team will go with them and actually help coach them in real time on how to walk up to people, how to talk about themselves, the work they’re doing, and our firm.”

Through these efforts, they are training young associates from all backgrounds to develop client relationships and generate business. It’s another aspect of nurturing diverse talent that too often gets short shrift at Big Law firms.

It’s also another indicator that the efforts at Selendy & Gay to attract, nurture and retain diverse talent just make good business sense.

They understand the value of a diverse team, and they make a real commitment to invest in all of their associates because they recognize that their incredible work product and service to clients is always dependent on their people.

2020

Right, Wrong AND THE BUSINESS LEADERS

Betwixt & Between

A DISCUSSION WITH BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE • BY KATRINA DEWEY

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann has long

boost last year when noted Delaware Chancery

been a leading voice for investors, in securities liti-

practitioner Greg Varallo joined the firm, bring-

gation and more recently in corporate governance disputes – litigation challenging everything from backdating of stock options to board oversight of legal risk, including sexual abuse claims.

ing more than three decades of trench warfare experience from the corporate side. The firm opened a Wilmington, Del., office and achieved a rare feat for shareholder advocates, promptly

Anchored by partners Mark Lebovitch and Jeroen

hiring three former clerks from Delaware’s famed

van Kwawegen, the practice got an enormous

Court of Chancery.

Photo by Andrew Kahl L ef t t o r i g h t : J er o en v a n K wa weg a n , Ma r k L eb o v i t c h , Gr eg V a r a llo

With Lebovitch that makes four. He became fascinated by corporate governance law as a 2L at NYU Law School, where he took Chancellor William Allen’s corporate law class. Allen inspired Lebovitch to clerk for Vice Chancellor Stephen P. Lamb, where he found his love of the courtroom. He then worked at Skadden Arps before finding his home at Bernstein Litowitz.

Van Kwawegen started out aiming to be a criminal lawyer after serving in the Dutch Military Police. After going to law school, he joined Latham & Watkins to handle plaintiff-side insurance recovery including the 9/11 disputes, before becoming a shareholder lawyer at Bernstein Litowitz over a decade ago.

Varallo hoped to join a big New York firm after graduating from Temple. But thanks to wise advice, he gave Wilmington a try, joining Richards, Layton & Finger in 1983 as the 33rd lawyer on its letterhead. Starting at the outset of the takeover era, he’s had a ringside seat to most of the iconic corporate governance disputes, serving as president of Richards Layton for three years before deciding last year to see if a tiger could change his stripes.

The team’s billion-dollar track record speaks for itself: Lebovitch helped recover $2.4B for shareholders in the federal securities claim arising from Bank of America’s buyout of Merrill Lynch; a $290M recovery from an insider trading scheme in the Allergan Proxy Violation case; and $90M plus groundbreaking corporate reforms against Fox News. Van Kwawegen netted $92.5M for shareholders in a conflicted merger of the Starz television network with Lionsgate; $75M for shareholders and drug product marketing reforms from Pfizer; and a $289M judgment resulting from an appraisal case over TransCanada’s acquisition of Columbia Pipeline. Varallo has played a role in some of the most important corporate governance battles in Delaware history, and most recently defended Fox News against Bernstein Litowitz. That, of course, was before he decided to switch up his practice.

We talked about their shared passion for corporate governance litigation, its evolution through Delaware’s Court of Chancery and its importance – especially in today’s world. In a time of chaos in which rules are questioned and bent, the importance of a framework to protect investors and motivate good corporate behavior may be more important than ever.

Lawdragon: Let’s start with a basic question. Why does corporate governance litigation matter?

Mark Lebovitch: The foundation of our economy rests on investors from all over the world pooling their 30

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

funds with talented managers. Preserving investors’ trust in their fiduciaries while encouraging prudent risk-taking by corporate directors and officers is the essence of corporate governance. That’s why on any given day the daily grind of the litigation can be challenging. But in the big picture, I consider myself so lucky. I love my practice, and it’s interesting on a day-to-day basis.

And Delaware law’s evolution over time is fascinating. A few years back it looked like we were headed toward a world of checklists, which was a shame as we’re not tax lawyers and this isn’t a real estate closing. What I learned from Bill Allen was that Delaware law and all its standards and complexities are not a checklist, but are really just guideposts to get to the fundamental concept of good faith.

The truth is, when people are doing something for self-interest or for an improper reason, they know more often than not that they shouldn’t be doing it, and they do little things to give themselves away.

They unconsciously leave a record showing their own guilt. It’s fun to parse through a record to figure out who’s hiding disloyalty and who genuinely tried to do right by their stockholders.

Jeroen van Kwawegen: There are a couple things I really like about corporate governance litigation.

One is it deals with right and wrong because we don’t bring lawsuits on a disagreement about a business decision or a business judgment. It really is about disloyalty and bad faith.

The second element I like is that it’s about human agency. I’m trying to understand human motivations.

When you think about a typical breach of contract dispute or a typical corporate dispute, very often it’s about what the corporation did and why the corporation did certain things. Whereas in my cases – which very often deal with controlling shareholders because of the development in the law – there very often is also a strong human component to it: The controller’s motivations can be very personal. There’s this interesting dynamic of complex corporate transactions that are motivated by human motivations. I like that sort of interaction between human nature and corporate decisions very much. It’s fascinating.

A third reason I really like it is, typically I have a very nice interaction with the judges. They don’t always agree with me and that’s okay, and sometimes they do and that’s great. But the judges I deal with in Delaware and also outside of Delaware are typically really engaged, and I have a dialogue with them

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

about where the law is, sometimes where I think the law should be going.

LD: Greg, you’re a newcomer to the plaintiff side of corporate governance and are considered one of its more notable practitioners from your 36 years of Chancery defense litigation. Can you talk a bit about your evolving perspective on corporate governance over the years?

Greg Varallo: I was lucky enough to find the Delaware legal community in 1983 at what I consider sort of a fulcrum on the continuum of development. There was a new takeover every week and we had an injunction every week, so in four or five years I got the equivalent of a career’s worth of experience in this area. If I had been in New York it would have taken me 30 years to get the experience I had in just a couple of years in Delaware.

When I started it was all about takeovers because the law concerning takeovers wasn’t well established. My first big case as a new associate was Moran v. Household International, which ruled on the legitimacy of the use of a poison pill. Before then pills didn’t even exist and up until Moran and Unocal – which was decided a couple of months later establishing the rules of the road as to what a board could and couldn’t do in connection with a takeover – there wasn’t an agreed-to framework for adjudicating a board’s behavior when facing a threat to its control. People were trying to put it in the business judgment rule rationale. Other people were trying to put it in a securities law framework and the courts didn’t seem to agree on how to review a board’s conduct in the takeover context.

When we got to Unocal and then Revlon, which is sort of the next step in the development, boards then at least had a roadmap.

But when I started we didn’t even have agreed-upon standards. Nobody knew what the standards were.

We were making it up in every case and if you read the law from the late 1970s to 1984 or so it’s clear that judges were literally trying to figure it out. I was a young kid. I was in the library researching cases but I worked on the cases that framed how you do takeovers and in the process learned a lot about how boards are supposed to work and how they’re not supposed to work.

LD: And it’s fair to say Richards Layton was a dominant player in most Delaware governance battles in those days.

GV: The firm was probably in nine out of 10 of the most important matters and we were a relatively 32

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

small shop at the time. When I started I was the 33rd lawyer on the letterhead and when I left we were about 170. In 1984 I was a first-year associate and my participation in the debate, fairly put, was listening to the giants of the bar discuss it. I was lucky enough to be in the room when these debates were being had.

For example, I was on the call in which Lou Finger debated with other leading Delaware corporate lawyers the pros and cons of whether GM could do the first tracking stock and even helped prepare the legal opinion in that regard. And shortly after working on Moran, the first pill case, I worked on Unocal and a few years later on Time Warner. And moving forward in time, in a rather strange twist of fate, after working on the case that approved the adoption of the first poison pill, I had the good fortune to work on the first use of the pill in Selectica, many years later.

LD: That’s a great perspective on how corporate governance litigation has been shaped over the years. And maybe it’s a good segue to the case that brought you all together – the 2016 battle over sexual abuse at Fox that sprung from Gretchen Carlson’s lawsuit against Fox television chief Roger Ailes which revealed oh so many very, very bad foxes. Bernstein Litowitz, led by Max Berger, Mark, and your partners David Wales and Rebecca Boon, represented the City of Monroe, Mich., Employees Retirement System to protect its investment in Fox, and Richards Layton defended.

ML: The law typically evolves slowly, but sometimes external events force it to take a sharp turn. I think that’s the story of the Fox News case. When Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit against Roger Ailes and chose not to name Fox News itself in order to avoid the confidential arbitration process that had concealed so many similar stories of sexual harassment by powerful executives, she changed corporate America forever.

From the stories of despicable and abusive conduct by Roger Ailes, we saw the birth of the #MeToo movement and the downfall of prominent figures like Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer and others who used their powerful positions as cover for predatory behavior.

When we got involved, we didn’t know if the law would follow, but we firmly believed it should. And what made the settlement possible was having adversaries in Greg and then-Fox General Counsel Gerson Zweifach who were strong enough to decide that sometimes fighting a case to the death is not in the client’s interest.

EXPERIENCED TRIAL LAWYERS REPRESENTING SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE, AND MISCONDUCT

LOS ANGELES BASED LAW FIRM WITH A NATIONWIDE PRACTICE

(310) 209 - 4100 CONNECT WITH US

@taylorringlaw

TAYLORRING.COM

TaylorRingLA

GV: Mark and I sat down and I said, “Look, we want to work with you. We want to get to a solution which is a fair and a good solution for the company.” It was important to Fox that Bernstein Litowitz work with us to achieve a result before it filed its suit. We wanted the news not to be that 21st Century Fox was sued but that 21st Century Fox just entered a landmark settlement addressing the issues that had been identified in the suit.

ML: I distinctly remember an early conversation in the Fox News case where Greg and I spoke about the position that the company will be in if we file the complaint. I recognized that once we filed suit, it would be tough for the board to justify its own conduct without seeming callous to the victims. But if they engaged with us, it was possible for the board to come out looking good.

Greg and I had a real conversation. When I say real, I mean it’s not just, “My client’s going to beat you and here’s why.” We were each doing our best for our clients, but we were able to level with each other in a way that is far too rare among lawyers used to pummeling their adversaries into a pulp. There was a level of trust. And as we went from the precipice of what would have been a mutually bruising litigation to the path that led to the settlement, that trust was repeatedly tested, but it held. We kept a large group of plaintiffs’ firms at bay and not in court, while Greg kept a challenging client open to making change and improving its culture instead of trying to justify its prior conduct.

LD: And after about a year of negotiations, you reached a settlement that set a new standard for corporate governance reform. Tell us about how you executed that.

GV: When we were ready to announce the settlement, Mark, his partner Max and I called the Court to give the Court a heads up that the case and settlement would be coming. The Court facilitated the settlement being filed on the same day that the case was.

Which sounds easy, but believe it or not, it took a fairly significant amount of logistical work to make that go smoothly.

So instead of the press cycle being, “Fox were sued again,” it was, “Fox reaches novel, interesting and positive settlement.” Bernstein Litowitz and their client achieved their goal of creating an example of how you could do this correctly and well. And I came away thinking anybody that could hold the whole plaintiffs’ bar together for a year, as they had, and that was trustworthy enough and had enough 34

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

integrity to not only keep their word but also manage all of their colleagues, was a true powerhouse.

JVK: That case also made clear to us the need for a bigger footprint in Delaware. The Fox settlement was just one of the corporate governance battles we were handling. We were killing ourselves. We were working so hard, and we’ve got a great team, but we were a New York firm handling a lot of our cases in Delaware.

Mark and I always viewed Delaware law somewhat as a pendulum swinging back and forth. There was a period of time where the decisions were very tough on shareholders. And while we didn’t always win in Delaware, we felt well received. We thought the pendulum was about to swing back, and decided the time was right to capitalize on something we treat as precious, which is good will with the judiciary. It’s critical that win or lose, the Delaware judges see us as quality players.

LD: And thanks to the Fox case, you knew just the right lawyer to anchor it. Varallo embodied the Delaware way, and was trusted on the corporate side of the bar as well as the Chancery bench.

GV: When I came on Mark had already hired Andrew Blumberg a few months earlier. Andrew had been Chancellor Bouchard’s clerk and then worked at Weil Gotshal. Since I’ve joined we’ve hired Tom James, who was Vice Chancellor Laster’s clerk and also worked at Weil; and Daniel Meyer, who had also been Chancellor Bouchard’s clerk and worked at Davis Polk. These associates joined a team of really excellent lawyers who had been working with Mark and Jeroen for years.

We’ve got a bench now that I would put against anybody. This team is really, really good. And I remember from Richards Layton, if we could hire one clerk a year we thought we were doing great. If we got two it was fantastic – and we never got three in a year.

I mean, it just didn’t happen. Adding to an already strong team, this group has become a juggernaut.

LD: Greg, it would have been so easy for you to just stay at Richards Layton, it’s an amazing firm. But you seem so reinvigorated and it’s fun to try different things.

GV: I couldn’t have said it better myself. I was also at a point in my career where I was blessed not to have to work if I didn’t want to and so I found myself ready for a new and meaningful challenge. One of the things I do in my spare time is hunt and I’ve hunted some big game. When I came in I said, “Look, we’re

hunting big game. We’re only going after big cases or big concepts, things that haven’t been done before.”

In our Wilmington conference room we have a huge photo of an enormous grizzly called Mountain Outlaw.

It reminds me every day of what we are doing and where we are headed.

LD: Mark, you pitched the idea of a corporate governance litigation focus to Bernstein Litowitz in 2004 when you interviewed with the firm as you were leaving Skadden. Can you talk about that and why you chose Bernstein Litowitz?

ML: I realized there was an opportunity in the Delaware legal system for aggressive plaintiff shareholder litigation because there were really only a few lawyers who were doing it the right way for shareholders. I interviewed with Max [Berger] and made my pitch.

“Look, I can litigate securities cases and that’s what you’re hiring me for, but down the road there’s an opportunity.” And Max is just the absolute embodiment of a visionary leader. He encourages entrepreneurial lawyering and has been tremendously supportive of our efforts since day one.

By the end of 2006, Bernstein Litowitz began to file corporate governance litigation. We started in late ‘06 bringing really interesting cases in Delaware, hostile takeover cases where we were representing shareholders. But we quickly focused on voting rights cases, dealing with core corporate governance questions. I think the judges welcomed it. Our strategic ethos at the time was what I’ll call unapologetically representing shareholders.

LD: What makes a case a Bernstein Litowitz type of case – what cases do you like to pursue and which aren’t for you?

ML: As part of the firm’s decision on which cases to pursue, the core question is: what would a person of honesty and basic integrity do in the same situation?

And if the answer is something other than what the prospective defendants did, they probably aren’t doing the right thing. If bad conduct not only harms that company’s shareholders but will be replicated at other companies if left unchallenged, then we are very likely to want to bring that challenge in the first place.

LD: When you achieve corporate governance reform or a settlement, does it feel like justice? I think to non-corporate types, the “victory” of reform can feel nebulous. Although as in Fox, it brings about discussion and it’s seen by other companies as a warning, saying “No, they were wrong. You can’t do this.”

ML: I think that structuring and negotiating intelligent and meaningful governance relief is really satisfying because it requires multiple skills. When I started law school, the dean asked us whether as a kid we envisioned ourselves being more of an architect or an archeologist. If you said archeologist, you’re a litigator; if you said architect you were a transactional lawyer.

What I like about governance cases is you’re a little bit of both. If there’s a deal pending, you are going through the history of it and piecing together what happened. But at the same time, you’re influencing things in real life, in real time. A smart governance settlement examines what went wrong in the past to craft a structure that tries to prevent a similar problem from happening in the future.

LD: Can we talk about some of your favorite cases?

And what about the resolution was meaningful to you?

ML: In addition to Fox, I’d say the Pfizer derivative suit. Until that point, you really didn’t have monetary recoveries in derivative suits related to the board overseeing legal compliance. The defense lawyers couldn’t believe we were serious in demanding that their clients had to pay to avoid a trial. Another was the El Paso buyout case. We really brought to light not only conflicts from insiders, but also, I would say, the callous way the Wall Street banks were approaching their own conflicts. Holding Goldman Sachs accountable in that case actually made them change the way they deal with personal conflicts of their bankers. It was a big wake up call to the Wall Street banks.

I’m also proud of Amylin, which is a voting rights case. We were working with now-Chancellor Andre Bouchard and his partner Joel Friedlander. We identified what are called proxy puts, which are basically debt-acceleration provisions triggered by stockholders changing the board. Proxy puts had proliferated through debt agreements in all sorts of public companies. We looked at it and said, “This is the craziest thing we’ve ever seen.” You literally are telling shareholders that if they choose to vote to change the board, they’re creating a risk of default.

We challenged the puts in Amylin’s debt agreements but feel like we created rules applicable to all companies.

LD: Can we talk a bit more about the development of the law as it reflects human motivation and influence? You have all spent a fair amount of your careers advocating for acknowledgement of what we

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

35

all know: human beings are conflicted with feelings and motivations, and where to draw lines about that.

JVK: There have been a number of decisions that I think have been influenced by former Chief Justice Leo Strine, cases like Sanchez and Pincus where he and his colleagues on the Delaware Supreme Court made very clear that directors are people, and that “homo economicus” does not exist; that people are driven by not only economic and financial incentives, but also by personal incentives.

I find that to be, A, true. I’m just looking at myself, right? But, B, that also then frames how you look at director conduct – that becomes a very human lens.

And I’ve had several arguments since those cases where I was explaining to the judge why I believed that there was going to be a problem with the supposed independence of certain directors because of human factors. I find that discussion really interesting, trying to essentially figure out if this person is really independent given the facts and motivations.

I love that aspect of the practice because it is really that intersection of right and wrong, personal motivations, financial motivations, complex corporate transactions.

And essentially if cases get resolved, you can have a meaningful impact about how companies operate in the future. You can change practices, and I think that’s one of the reasons why you hear so much about Fox because that was one recent, high profile example.

We did the same thing with Pfizer 10 years ago about how they were overseeing drug marketing practices.

You can have a direct impact on how companies operate in a changing social regulatory environment.

That’s empowering, right? It’s empowering for the clients that we represent, the shareholders, very often institutional shareholders, but in many ways it’s also empowering for me because I’m part of that effort to make companies better and hold their boards and executives accountable if they are really off the rails.

LD: It’s interesting because the nature of directors has historically been very “insider.” Bringing elements of corporate governance that have been hidden from shareholders out into the light of day is something Bernstein Litowitz and others can facilitate by pushing in places where it’s still a bit old school and protective of things that maybe should be more transparent.

JVK: I completely agree, and I don’t think it’s just because of litigation, but there’s definitely been a move towards the professionalization of boards, but also of the directors themselves, right? Activists should be credited for that too, putting the spotlight 36

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

on directors who have been at companies for a very long time, including companies that have been underperforming for a very long time.

LD: Greg, what’s the intellectual attraction of the clients you’re representing at Bernstein Litowitz and do you see it as a continuation of your corporate governance practice in a way?

GV: I think that being a plaintiffs’ lawyer gives you the ability to be at the leading edge of lots of common law governance development, and I’ve now had the opportunity to argue a number of cases on the plaintiffs’ side.

The issue is typically framed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

On the defense side, you’re sued and then you choose your defense based upon the way the plaintiffs have constructed the litigation. I did plaintiffs’ work occasionally as a defense lawyer, usually for activists, but I rarely got the opportunity to frame the legal issue in the way that I knew exactly what the Court had to decide and exactly how the defendants had to respond to a particular issue.

LD: It’s also interesting to look at the crossover of corporate governance litigation to the global sphere.

Jeroen, that’s an area of particular interest for you as head of the firm’s European practice.

JVK: One of the founders of the firm, Max Berger, at one point said to me, “Is this something that you would like to do? Because culturally it probably is a good fit. You’re a Dutch person. You can be a cultural bridge for us between the United States and Europe.”

I thought that was a wonderful opportunity for me and for the firm. I said, “Max, that sounds like a great plan.” So I started building a network of European clients. But first we thought long and hard about our core values, market positioning and strategy. This principally happened during a very long conversation with Max walking around Amsterdam for hours.

We drilled down on who are we, and how do we want people in Europe to perceive us. Because from the outside all these firms are sort of similar and everybody has a friendly face. How do people actually realize that people at Bernstein Litowitz are different? The answer was simple: We prove over and over again to our clients that we are in it for the long-haul, that we are repeat players who care more about our clients’ long-term strategic interests than about achieving a “quick” win with any individual case or outcome. As shown by our track record – measured by third parties like ISS-SCAS and others – this approach leads to unparalleled success over time.

That long-term view was very important to me. That became the driving factor when I was working with European clients, educating them on shareholder litigation and explaining essentially our approach and how that is different from other firms. That ties into corporate governance because the European clients that I work with are all sophisticated institutional investors with a long-term perspective. They tend to be, by American standards, huge. Some of my smallest clients in Europe, they may have $10B under management. That is a pretty big client in the United States. I also have clients in Europe that have more than $400B under management. They are massive institutions with massive assets that they are investing, and sophisticated legal departments and in-house portfolio managers. What I’ve seen over time is that in Europe with these institutional clients, they increasingly started using Environmental, Social and Governance Principles when assessing investments and their approach to shareholder litigation to further their funds’ and stakeholders’ long-term objectives.

When you are running a company that is under duress, the tensions between your personal interests as a CEO controller or a director, and the interests of your shareholders are exacerbated. So I think that there will be more instances of disloyal conduct because the incentives are going to be more exacerbated, not because people are bad people but because they are human.

LD: That seems particularly timely with the legal and financial worldwide fallout from Covid.

I don’t think it’s caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, but there’s a strong push to start saying, “You know what, the directors and the officers, they shouldn’t just be accountable to shareholders. They should have more freedom to also take into account the environmental, social and governance issues when they’re making decisions.” This is embraced by the same law firms and advisors that don’t like accountability for directors and officers to shareholders to begin with. I don’t think that this is a good development, especially because it moves away from accountability right at a time when accountability for corporate insiders is more important than ever, in part because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

JVK: What’s been borne out specifically for our clients with respect to Covid is the belief that they are investing for the long term. They want this to be sustainable. They are looking out for their beneficiaries and they need to be able to get paid and have their pensions 50 or 100 years from now. So they have a very long-term view.

I recently became an American citizen, but having this cultural fit of a European background helps me talk the same “language” because I consider the governance aspect of our practice in the same way.

Look, the environmental and social aspects of the investment policies, I’m much less conversant there because I’m not an environmental lawyer, I’m not a social justice lawyer. But the governance aspect, we talk the same language, we understand what the ultimate goals are: Hold disloyal agents accountable and align interests with shareholder objectives.

LD: What do you think the impact near-ish term and longer of Covid and the financial peril we’re in is going to be on corporate governance litigation?

JVK: I am a very optimistic person, but I’m not very optimistic with respect to this pandemic. So that also colors my views because the way I see this now going is a longer period of economic stress, a longer period of social distress. I’m very concerned about a lot of companies going out of business and the ripple effect it’s going to have.

38

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: So could there be more governance litigation on the horizon?

JVK: I expect there to be more governance litigation because people will have stronger incentives not to act in the best interest of their shareholders.

Interestingly enough, currently there’s a new movement afoot here in the United States to essentially say that we should move from a shareholder model to a stakeholder model. The idea is that the board and the insiders should be focused on a broader range of stakeholders and ESG interests, as opposed to maximizing value for shareholders.

LD: In addition to the firm’s expertise and the remarkable conversations you all have, you seem to really enjoy working together.

JVK: I’m thrilled with our team and my partners. It is such a great, fun practice to do this with my colleagues. We complement each other in so many different ways.

LD: Mark, what cases are you working on now?

ML: I’m working on HC2, formerly Primus Telecommunications, whose shareholders are conducting a proxy consent solicitation to replace the board led by Phil Falcone, who previously admitted to misconduct in running his prior hedge fund – paying $18M to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission that he used fund assets to pay personal income taxes, among other things. In response, the board in

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.

its own public filings essentially warned shareholders that, “If you vote for the other guys, we may have to pay out $27M to our preferred stockholders because of a change of control provision.”

We saw that and said, “That’s insane. There’s no reason why the incumbent directors should be able to say, ‘Voting us out is going to make the company owe money to some third party.’”

Corporate lawyers have started using “change of control” language that included not just buying the company, but also a change in the board. We thought maybe the language was a mistake, but not long after filing suit we learned that the language was no mistake. HC2 was represented by Skadden and Cadwalader. These are big 800-pound gorillas who know every nuance of M&A law and they’re manipulating this proxy-put provision that shouldn’t be on the table.

LD: What about you Jeroen?

JVK: I’m in the midst of two battles, BGC and Regency. They both come to mind because I think they are part of the pendulum swinging back to neutral as opposed to anti-shareholder.

In BGC, I successfully fought a motion to dismiss in front of Chancellor Bouchard, which I believe would have been dismissed five years ago when the court would not have looked beyond the economic incentives of the board members.

The Regency case is a challenge to a self-interested merger of a master limited partnership. MLP agreements exclude fiduciary duties and can be ripe for abuse. For the longest time, the boards and the controllers of these MLPs essentially thought they had free reign to abuse their limited partner unit holders and that there would never be any consequences.

We brought the suit in 2015, claiming Regency’s general partner engaged in a self-interested transaction for the benefit of its controller, which they lied to investors about and had conflicted directors approve. Initially, the Chancellor dismissed the case.

We appealed and the Delaware Supreme Court overturned, finding that the absence of fiduciary duties did not mean the general partner of an MLP could act arbitrarily and contrary to the reasonable expectations of LP unit holders as expressed in the MLP contract and the implied terms of good faith and fair dealing. The idea that a general partner can lie to other unit holders about the process it used to orchestrate a self-interested merger and claim it’s not a breach of the MLP contract is crazy talk, because 40

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After that decision came out, there were a lot of client alerts from prominent defense firms saying, “Newsflash: We can’t lie to our unit holders anymore!”

I was actually shocked to see that and it confirmed my worst fears about the level of misconduct that had gone unchecked in the MLP space.

The Delaware Supreme Court has moved the needle back to what I would call the middle, more to a world where the directors are presumed to work in good faith and act in good faith, but if there are serious red flags that they did not, the Court is going to take a serious look at that.

LD: OK Greg, who’s in your sights?

GV: I’m working on a case involving Tile Shop, which decided to go dark and de-register from NASDAQ and the SEC. Companies decide to go dark for a variety of reasons. But the day after Tile Shop announced its decision to do so, two of its directors went into the marketplace and bought up millions of shares. At that point, its stock price had cratered roughly 60 percent. They bought 12 percent of the company between them in the course of a few days until our team, led by my colleague C.J. Orrico, was able to go in and get a temporary restraining order against their continuing to purchase.

And more recently, we challenged a number of hyperaggressive poison pills that have been adopted over the last few months, all of which will go to trial in early 2021. It will be really fun to be challenging pills after defending them and using them in prior cases.

LD: And finally, what do you see on the horizon for corporate governance litigation in the years ahead?

GV: You know, when Covid hit, a leading defense lawyer posted on the Harvard Governance blog and suggested that investors should stop bringing cases during the pandemic. We disagreed strongly with this – in times of crisis, access to justice is more important, not less, and investors have every right to preserve their access to lawful remedies. As we predicted, those who would bend the rules didn’t sit still during the pandemic. As Mark noted we saw a company try to slip by its use of a proxy put and others adopting poison pills that are so restrictive as to be virtually preclusive. In the coming months we will be dealing with some of these governance issues, as well as cases involving controllers who we think took advantage of their investors, among other things.

IS P RO U D TO HAV E

three of our outstanding legal recruiters recognized by LawDragon in 2020 as Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists

Jon Lindsey

Deborah Ben-Canaan

Jacquelyn Knight

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 has led us to offering a suite of legal recruiting and talent management services in 27 offices around the world: > Associate Practice Group

> In-House Counsel Recruiting

> Partner Practice Group

> Interim Legal Talent

> Law Firm Management

> 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

Andy Pitts and Craig Arcella

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

A Pandemic,

A Hot Market,

“All Systems Go” FOR CRAVATH’S CAPITAL MARKETS TEAM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

The firm’s generalist and versatile nature has kept the capital markets practice white-hot in 2020.

Dealmakers everywhere had reason for high hopes as they greeted Jan. 1, 2020. The stock markets were at all-time highs, public offerings were in the chute and the horizon looked clear – save for a high-stakes presidential election coming in the U.S.

The global pandemic plunged worldwide economies to new depths, with lockdowns debilitating travel and retail, as well as restaurants and other hospitality and event businesses. Small businesses have been massacred.

The world’s largest corporations and investors have faced a different array of challenges, assessing risk, liquidity and the future of their businesses in the most uncertain of times.

And so too have their lawyers at Cravath.

Early this fall, Lawdragon discussed the trajectory of the pandemic and its impact on the markets in the U.S. and Europe and the outlook for year-end with members of Cravath’s top-tier Capital Markets team: Andy Pitts, the New York-based head of the practice for North America; Sasha Rosenthal-Larrea, a New York partner whose practice also covers leveraged loans; Craig Arcella, also in New York, and Co-Head of the firm’s Finance Practice; Alyssa Caples, based in London, whose practice also includes corporate governance and board advisory work; and Philip Boeckman, also in London, where he is both the Managing Partner for the office and Co-Head of the Capital Markets Practice for EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa).

Despite a global economy that nearly ground to a halt, the Cravath Capital Markets team has had a white-hot year. The activity is thanks, in part, to the firm’s generalist nature, showcased by its breadth in representing both corporate issuers and investment banks, and allowing it to pivot from high-yield bonds to equity finance at a moment’s notice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

43

Lawdragon: How would you describe the impact of the pandemic on Cravath’s capital markets practice?

Andy Pitts: There has surely been an evolution over the past several months. Companies in sectors like oil, aerospace, travel and retail determined relatively quickly following the onset of the market panic that they needed to raise capital. And it was not necessarily because they weren’t going to be able to pay the bills in a week or even in six months, but because there was such severe dislocation that even really well-capitalized, large, more mature companies wanted to put more cash on their balance sheets.

One of the simplest ways to do that was for a company to borrow everything it could under its revolving credit facilities. A lot of companies across the credit spectrum have revolving credit facilities that are largely unused by the higher-rated credits, but they’re available as a security blanket. So our team at Cravath spent a lot of time in March and early April talking to corporate clients about that decision in the early months: “Should we draw down the revolver?” At that time, the thought was, “If we don’t do it today, is it possible that in two weeks, the banks won’t let us?”

There was a fair amount of activity along those lines early on, but then the Fed intervened very aggressively in the credit markets.

LD: That’s interesting, as I think much of the focus in the non-financial media was around the halt in M&A activity.

AP: That changed too, certainly. On the financing side, equity markets stabilized, but I think – more importantly in many respects – the bond market stabilized at very low interest rates.

The next phase we saw was industries that weren’t severely impacted by the pandemic looking at the market and saying, “Even if I have to pay a little more because of some volatility in the market in terms of credit spread, I can still borrow at all-time low rates.”

That drove a lot of financing activity.

LD: What were some of the other changes that become more pronounced as things progressed?

AP: Going into April, May and then June, we were seeing enormous volume in investment-grade issuance and, as the market digested that, we started to see more people creeping into the market further down on the credit spectrum.

The third element of the pandemic trajectory that certainly impacted our work was an incredible uptick in the convertible debt market. If you think about the 44

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

economics of convertible debt, it’s basically a forward sale of your common stock, and you’re selling it at a premium to the prevailing market price. So in the spring and into the summer, even though the markets recovered, there were still a lot of companies in the more impacted industries whose stock might have been off 25 percent or 30 percent, but they could go out and raise convertible debt with a conversion premium of 35 percent on the common stock.

Many issuers used derivative products to increase the effective conversion rate to significantly higher premiums. It was an attractive option – particularly given there is virtually no corporate CFO that thinks his or her company is overvalued.

LD: Was it the same situation operating out of London?

Philip Boeckman: We experienced a similar situation in Europe, though with a few wrinkles. One was that at least some of the bigger corporates were able to avail themselves of government funding, which reduced some of the balance sheet needs they had arising out of the pandemic. There was still a role for capital markets to play there, but the state aid helped to bridge some of that gap.

There’s also a greater tendency in Europe, at least in some jurisdictions like the UK, to turn to the equity markets and existing shareholders to raise financing when in need. So we’ve certainly been quite busy on some of those follow-on or secondary equity offerings by existing public companies in the UK and other jurisdictions. In terms of the high-yield bond market, while that recovered and came back to life quite quickly in the U.S., it took a little longer in Europe, as it normally does, for it to bounce back.

But once it did, which was really by May, it has been quite busy.

For example, we completed at the end of July a debut high yield issuance for a payment services tech company, Paymentsense Limited, and they raised £290M in an all-sterling deal – the largest of the year. So it’s been interesting to see how quickly the high-yield market has recovered.

LD: Let’s talk a bit more about the high-yield bond market specifically. Cravath has been a leader here since helping to develop it in the ‘80s. What changes have you seen in the last several months in the highyield space in particular?

Sasha Rosenthal-Larrea: As soon as it became very clear that things were going well in the investmentgrade markets, a lot of the high-yield issuers piled on, mostly to add capital to their balance sheets.

That was followed by a strong wave of opportunistic refinancings.

One thing that we’ve seen is that there’s a huge uptick in the proportion of high-yield bond offerings that are secured. Secured notes used to be few and far between in the U.S. In Europe, it’s much more common for them to be secured. So in the face of the pandemic, and amidst all of the related uncertainty, to improve execution, a lot of issuers chose to go out with secured offerings, which introduce additional complexity.

Alyssa Caples: On the high-yield side in Europe, we had many transactions that were put on hold at the beginning of the pandemic. There was a lot of start and stop, and it hasn’t been a smooth market for all issuers. Depending on the market you’re in and depending on how picky a company may be about terms, there is still some choppiness in the high-yield market. That said, in the last month or so, the high-yield market in Europe has really picked up and we’ve been quite busy with a number of deals that have launched and priced.

LD: So there is volatility, too, in terms of some of the financings: they’re not completed, the companies choose not to do them or can’t do them on the terms that they want. Does that require more work by you as counsel to help a client arrange options?

PB: Yes, you can especially see that on the high-yield side. For issuers, being flexible and versatile and ready to go at the right time is especially important.

AP: Basically, you have investment banks encouraging issuers to be ready, have the documentation in place and then it’s the trial balloon approach, where they’ll say, “Oh, one of your comparable companies, or one of your peers, is going to go to market next week and let’s see if they can get a deal done.” For the most part, in my experience, it has been less whether an issuer can get a deal done as opposed to at what terms it can be done.

PB: On top of it now, of course, you have the U.S. election. Obviously, for the IPO market in particular, but even for the bond markets, everybody is trying to get deals done sooner rather than later on the assumption that, as we get closer to November 3rd, there may be too much market volatility and a bit of a blackout.

LD: That is very much a global consideration, and I want to pivot to that point – how Cravath’s practice is integrated across offices. Can you talk about how the team works together out of New York and London, particularly now given the state of global markets?

Sasha Rosenthal-Larrea, New York. Photo provided by the firm.

Craig Arcella: The relationship between our New York and London offices is really a unique combination of independence and collaboration. Obviously, New York is Cravath’s center of gravity, but the London office has always been a true leader in European high-yield and U.S.-bound European equity issuance and also has a number of active investment grade issuer clients. We work very closely together through all market cycles. Importantly, all of the capital markets partners in London began their Cravath careers in New York, and a number of the New York-based capital markets partners (including Sasha and me) have spent considerable time working in London. So, while the London and New York offices are independent practices with their own client bases, we are constantly collaborating and covering global clients as a team. That works extremely well in today’s environment.

AC: Particularly in today’s financing environment, corporate clients often have a wide range of products to choose from. With offices in both New York and London, Cravath is able to offer our clients products in both markets. For instance, I routinely work with Tatiana Lapushchik, another of our New York-based

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

45

finance partners, on transactions for clients where they seek to access both the European high-yield market and the U.S. leveraged loan market. The collaboration creates a lot of cross-fertilization – we are able to bring our clients a broad perspective and update them on trends in each market so they have the opportunity to access the “best of both worlds” for the terms of their instruments.

be precluded from using those assets as collateral in other types of financing later. So, while it may sound good today, this is a seven-year, a 10-year instrument, and it’s going to have implications for life. A big part of our job is making sure clients don’t just focus on the near-term benefits, but are in a position to make thoughtful decisions about the longer-term consequences.

LD: Right. It’s vital to underscore that the choices clients make today, even in these circumstances, they’re going to be living with when markets are good and the world is presumably better.

PB: That’s right, and we’re having different conversations with clients who were in different positions pre-pandemic.

The consumer-facing sectors have been particularly hard hit. How they have approached capital market solutions through this period has depended on their company’s specific situation heading into the pandemic.

Those companies that had stronger balance sheets, that had to raise financing and maybe turned to the equity or debt markets, they’ve been able to do that and stabilize their business and move on.

So we’ve done that for issuers in the hotel industry, issuers in the business of fashion, sports betting, soccer clubs.

Philip Boeckman, New York. Photo by Laura Barisonzi.

LD: The perspective Cravath brings from a global, market-leading practice gives each of you remarkable insight into the range of discussions happening in organizations of all types and sizes and the options they are formulating through this period.

AP: We work a lot with investment banking clients, and investment bankers are focused on solutions.

But for a lot of our corporate clients, they have less experience evaluating the relative advantages and disadvantages of all the different products out there.

One of the things we do is help them understand the advantages and disadvantages and the cost of those options, such as secured high-yield bonds.

Companies that take that option, for example, will

46

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Those companies that were already on shakier ground had to pivot to more of a restructuring mode when the pandemic hit. For example, our team in London, together with Paul Zumbro, a restructuring partner in our New York office, advised a Dutch retailer in a restructuring process with a debt-for-equity swap and new debt instruments, completing a UK scheme of arrangement, emerging from the restructuring process and keeping the business intact and jobs in place.

There were many companies facing headwinds before the pandemic, and then the pandemic obviously accelerated things to some extent.

LD: It certainly seems that many of the companies that filed bankruptcy in the U.S. were already deeply troubled. And most were in a deeply challenging sector.

AC: Relatedly, another area that has been interesting in the capital markets space through the pandemic has been disclosure and how a company signals how the business is doing. This was especially true in the beginning, when only 2019 financial statements were available and none of the pandemic’s impacts had yet appeared in publicly-available numbers.

The Modern Law Firm.

Refocused. $45 billion in recoveries.

Insightful enough to take the long view.

Nimble enough to take on everything in our path.

Selendy & Gay PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Tel: 212 390 9000 Fax: 212 390 9399 www.selendygay.com

Finding ways to evaluate what was happening to a business during the onset of the pandemic and really kicking the tires and putting that into words to inform investors when the hard numbers weren’t available was a particularly interesting and somewhat challenging exercise. It meant going through each business and really digging into and understanding, “What is the impact? Where are the soft spots? What do we see coming down the pike?” and turning those insights into appropriate disclosures.

LD: That’s fascinating because certainly there was that moment in the spring of suspended animation – where, as you say, nobody knew anything about the impact and you were having to figure out, based on numbers from a prior world, what to say.

AP: The expectations really evolved a lot, too, because on March 15th, it was acceptable to be vague about the changing markets and growing impact of the pandemic. But on April 15th, the market wouldn’t accept that anymore, and it was expected that disclosure was going to be more comprehensive and telling.

SRL: We saw that in a bond offering for an airline parts manufacturer, which priced at the beginning of April, and so you can imagine that when we started working on it, we had to start from scratch given there was no first-quarter 10-Q filing out there with a Covid-19 disclosure.

The issuer pulled their existing guidance the morning that we launched the bond offering. It was interesting to be on the ground and involved in preparing the company’s disclosure relating to Covid. At that point, we really had to look at disclosures that had been made in the issuer’s 10-K filed in February and analyze what needed to be said, and whether things need to be updated. It wasn’t just a matter of putting together one paragraph on the Covid risk factor and moving on.

LD: What about the leveraged finance space? What have you seen in the past few months?

SRL: What was happening amidst the pandemic was companies were looking to amend their credit facilities, particularly their financial covenants. Those amendments, though, came at a price, not just financial but also in the form of reduced optionality for the company.

What has also been interesting is that acquisition finance disappeared for about three months. I spent a lot of time on opportunistic refinancings and cashto-balance-sheet transactions. It was very odd to take a break from the acquisition finance space for a while, 48

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

but that work started up again about two months ago, and we seem to be off to the races in only a slightly more subdued way than we were earlier this year.

Another deal that I worked on recently was representing one of the major investors in a cruise line participating in a financing for the cruise line early on in the pandemic. We worked with the shareholder who was looking to become involved for the first time on the debt side in order to protect their equity investment, so that was very interesting and detailoriented work.

CA: In addition to the credit agreement amendments that Sasha refers to, at the outset of the pandemic we saw two other workstreams in the leveraged finance space. First, there were a lot of M&A deals that had been signed pre-pandemic but where the financing was yet to be raised when Covid hit. Getting those deals closed was tricky and required careful analysis of the pre-pandemic contracts in order to find as much flexibility as possible. Second, there were a lot of credits that quickly went into distress, and our ability to develop creative liability management solutions became increasingly important.

Since that early period, there has been a relative return to normality, as banks have been willing to commit funds to credits whose story works within the current pandemic-affected economy. It’s been encouraging to see.

AP: In terms of nimbleness and flexibility, we talked about being ready to go and going to the market when the market is ready. In the high-yield or leveraged finance space, that’s especially true as it relates to what you bring to the market, and we see that a lot at Cravath just given the nature of our practice.

Once upon a time, issuers, with the advice of their lawyers and investment banks, made a decision, “We’re going to access the high-yield bond market,” and everybody would get on the bus and you drove it to the station. Or you decided, “We’re going to finance this with a term loan or other credit facility product,” which is a different process.

Those were completely separate tracks and often had completely separate lawyers, whereas now you see a lot more agility and people saying, “Guess what, we’re not doing a secured bond deal anymore, we’re doing a secured term loan.” Or vice versa. Or “We’re going to split up. We’re going to do an unsecured bond and a secured bond.” For Cravath, where we are active in the high-yield market and where we have leading lawyers in the bank and bond arenas of

been more volume than in the year before and, in certain of those sectors, than in the largest prior year by volume.

LD: And, of course, there’s the election just around the corner. How much is that impacting your practice?

SRL: It’s just all systems go. Every day there is a new call from a client indicating they want to do a deal by mid-October. Mid-November is the cutoff in a typical year, but with the upcoming general election in the United States, timelines have all been accelerated.

The markets are really good. I’ve had clients who issued bonds at the beginning of the pandemic and some that have issued bonds recently, and, all things being equal, the interest rate is about half what it was six months ago. So the market is really hot right now, but of course it is difficult to envision what we may see in 2021.

Alyssa Caples, London. Photo provided by the firm.

the leveraged finance space, we all have the ability to say to our clients, “OK, if you want to make that toggle, I’m your lawyer,” which is tremendous. Our platform allows us to deliver in all of these areas, and to help our clients evaluate the best options for their business.

LD: The market activity seems almost a reflection of Cravath’s practice as you’ve described it.

AP: One of the benefits of our practice is that we are very flat and all of us grew up working on lots of different types of transactions. We don’t have 40 people who only know how to do high-yield bonds in Europe. If, for some reason, there’s a big pull back in that space, we don’t have enormous under-utilization of our lawyers. Our breadth of skill and the relatively small size of our firm historically has allowed us to deploy resources where they can be best used.

And in 2020, capital markets has absolutely been an area where we’ve had a lot of activity and focus within our Corporate Department. In many areas of the market – the convertible debt market, the IPO market, the investment grade market – there’s 50

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PB: No one knows, of course, what next year will hold, though I’m sure there will continue to be periods of some volatility and this flexibility that we’ve talked about – both from our clients and our ability to pivot as advisors – will continue to be critically important.

I think it will also be interesting to see what happens in the IPO market, which has been very strong recently with deals like Snowflake and the direct listing of Palantir, where we were involved. But with the valuations we’re currently seeing in the equity markets and the U.S. election, whether that market takes a pause or not remains to be seen.

LD: Palantir launched as a direct listing, an alternative to a traditional IPO. Another IPO alternative, SPACs [special purpose acquisition companies], have been getting a lot of attention recently. Are SPACs going to be an important part of Cravath’s capital markets practice?

CA: SPACs will clearly be a part of our practice for so long as they have the traction in the marketplace that they do today. Many of our private clients that are considering entry into the public markets, and many clients that are looking to divest a business where an IPO is a possibility, are today looking at the SPAC alternative. For Cravath, the option creates a great opportunity, because we can deliver unique value given our strength in M&A and our capital markets expertise. That said, because our capital markets practice is so diverse, I believe that SPACs will become a regular “part of the portfolio” rather than a discrete or particularly heavy practice area.

An Urgent Legacy IT’S TIME FOR LAW FIRMS TO GET REAL ABOUT INCLUSION.

BY KATRINA DEWEY FISK AND HBCUS CAN HELP. He had stowed an apple and an orange in his backpack, alongside a toothbrush and toothpaste.

He’d been to jail before and knew the drill.

He’d also packed two books, “The Seven Storey Mountain,” about Catholic Monk Thomas Merton; and “The American Political Tradition,” by Richard Hofstadter.

“In times of change and danger when there is a quicksand of fear under man’s reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present,” wrote John dos Passos, to begin the latter book.

Up he walked, and over the bridge. There, John Lewis saw a sea of blue.

Selma, Alabama. March 7, 1965.

The world. 2020.

What’s goin’ on?

John Lewis was an ordained minister who graduated from American Baptist College and in 1961 enrolled in Fisk University, where he became a leader of the sitin movements at lunch counters and movie theaters

PHOTO BY: UPI / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

in Nashville, and as one of the original 13 Freedom Riders. He prematurely ended his studies at Fisk to take on leadership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and was a leader of the Selma to Montgomery march.

He was beaten and his skull was fractured for marching over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Those were among many scars he bore until the day he died earlier this year, inflicted for his nonviolent activism to achieve the right to vote and other civil rights protections.

“I was inspired to get in the way. For more than 50 years, I’ve been getting in the way. I’ve been getting in trouble – good trouble, necessary trouble,” Lewis said on a 2017 visit to Fisk, to which he returned to earn his degree after Selma.

Fisk University has launched many civil rights leaders since its founding in 1866, just months after the end of the Civil War. Named for Union General Clinton B. Fisk, its original home was in former military barracks near Nashville’s Union Station. It was founded by John Ogden, Edward Parmelee Smith and abolitionist Erastus Milo Cravath.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

51

Left: Photo provided by U.S. National Archives; Above: Photo provided by Fisk University..

“Fisk was a site of the birth of a great movement,” Lewis said at Fisk the year he graduated.

And yet, in 2020, it remains a small – mighty if underappreciated – underendowed historical Black college and university. With 900 students and an endowment of $25M, it offers employers a direct pipeline to diverse students educated and empowered by the past whose eyes are on the future. Their future.

One might think Fisk and its fellow HBCUs would be overwhelmed with donors and supporters.

“I’ll be fully honest with you, my goal for this place is and has always been that there is a unique opportunity to solve one of the largest national problems.

And that is a socioeconomic question around minority presence, minority executive leadership, minority seats at the table. In a society driven by economics, that seems to me the most fruitful way to get there, through education,” says Dr. Jens Frederiksen, Fisk vice president of institutional advancement and strategic development.

cording to data compiled by the Thurgood Marshall College Fund. It doesn’t take a genius to know that if your car is out of gas, you go to a gas station. And if your car runs out of gas after filling the tank, you may need to have your car repaired.

Talk to me, so you can see Oh what’s goin’ on ….

Cravath founder Paul Drennan Cravath spent his childhood years on the Fisk campus, where his father served as the first President of the University from 1875 to 1900. Paul Cravath served in leadership roles at Fisk for 45 years. To honor that legacy, Cravath in 2019 launched the Cravath Scholars program as part of its bicentennial commemoration. The program provides tuition assistance and a summer internship in Cravath’s New York office for two students per year, which is hoped to grow in number.

“We launched the Cravath Scholars program to honor our historic connection to Fisk and support its mission,” said Faiza J. Saeed, Cravath’s Presiding Partner.

“Fisk has a remarkable legacy as one of our country’s great historically Black colleges and its students represent the promise of the future. ”

And let’s be clear: There is a problem. Corporate America is not diverse, and few professions have failed more than the nation’s most elite Big Law firms, whose decades of good intentions have produced fewer Black partners than random chance would. Think of it this way: Fresh in our minds, the 2020 U.S. election showed profoundly the importance of everyone’s right to vote. And while Big Law is not a democracy, the pathway to gaining a vote – a seat at the table of law firm owners – remains profoundly disparate. Some could say unfair, certainly deeply flawed.

“I sometimes say, ‘I feel like we are the best kept secret,’ which of course you don’t want to be in a competitive higher education space, but it truly is just the most underexposed gem,” says Frederiksen. He moved to Nashville 20 years ago to attend Vanderbilt University, and heard of Fisk because of its partnership with Vanderbilt. After teaching at Sewanee, he went to work for the Governor of Tennessee, traveling throughout the state assessing its diverse portfolio of business. When he got a call seven years ago asking if he’d be interested in teaching at Fisk, he said of course.

HBCUs produce 50 percent of the nation’s practicing Black lawyers and 80 percent of its Black judges, ac-

“If you’re in education, you are obviously an idealist in some way, shape, or form,” says Frederiksen. “So

52

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I was acutely familiar with the caliber of students at Vanderbilt and at Sewanee. I came over here to Fisk and was just blown away by the caliber of students, the stories, their motivations, and just felt like this was a place that was so profoundly underexposed, and these young people were so inspirational.”

He has been in administration for going on five years, raising Fisk’s fundraising game from $4M annually to $11M today. And while that’s a big gain, it’s slightly heartbreaking compared to eight-figure gifts routinely given to Harvard and the nation’s other major universities. The focus on funding HBCUs is gaining momentum, with massive gifts to Howard, Xavier, Spelman and Morehouse, among others from Reed Hastings and his wife, Patti Quillin, and Mackenzie Bezos.

A companion to fundraising is an emphasis on raising student internships, which have increased from 20 percent to 41 percent of Fisk’s student body, thanks to Cravath; Google; Ingram Industries; and HCA Healthcare.

“We can all be enamored with the results of what HBCUs are producing with relatively – not even relatively – with comparatively minute means,” says Frederiksen, whose students come mostly from households making less than $40,000 per year. “But there is something far more robust and substantial that happens at HBCUs around students who are experiencing other students, echo chambers, climates that they feel empowered by, they can be themselves. It’s not just about representation. What HBCUs, and particularly small private ones like ours do, is they give students a sense that the sky genuinely is the limit.”

Jens Frederiksen. Photo provided by Fisk University.

The Cravath program is particularly meaningful because it invests in students years before they will become professionals. A fairly typical law firm approach to diversity is to have a consortium, to study the problem, to create a committee. “The fascination is always for people to tackle a problem at the apex,” he says. “But sometimes that’s not where you’re really going to tackle it. You’re going to tackle it years ahead.”

“Students understand who’s doing the right thing,” he says.

He has watched countless companies befuddled when top graduates turn down their offers, which he sees as a systemic issue.

“I think what makes Cravath and the scholars program so unique in this capacity is that you’re getting them ahead of law school,” Frederiksen says.

He believes that early exposure to a firm like Cravath can be “life altering” and reflects the type of long-

term commitment required to have lasting change in future decades.

And students are smart. They watch and learn. From what grownups do as much as what they say. Fisk used to have a large financial company that would come to campus and ask the university to pay for the lunch. It would hire the three seniors it liked best, and go away until the next year. These days, as other partners and companies show up, not many students are signing up for that company.

Mother, mother, everybody thinks we’re wrong Oh, but who are they to judge us Simply ‘cause our hair is long Think of it this way. If there was a lunch counter who happily served a group of students who just walked in famished after a Black Lives Matter protest and another that nervously found a place in the corner, which restaurant do you think the students would go back to?

“A democracy cannot thrive where power remains unchecked and justice is reserved for a select few,” John Lewis said. “Ignoring these cries and failing to respond to this movement is simply not an option – for peace cannot exist where justice is not served.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

53

GIVING A VOICE TO THE SILENCED Anatomy of a Sexual Abuse Practice at Taylor & Ring

Long before the #MeToo movement brought sexual abuse and harassment to the forefront of our collective awareness, Dave Ring has been battling major institutions on behalf of young victims – and securing outstanding results.

Ring started this practice in the mid-90s, when sexual abuse was often blamed on the victim and cases were frequently settled quietly before trial because the whole thing was considered so shameful. Although he has a markedly laid-back demeanor, Ring is a bulldog in the courtroom, and he never shied away from bringing these cases to trial.

After his first $10M jury verdict for an abused student, Ring knew he had found a litigation niche for himself.

As the widespread sexual abuse and cover-ups of the Catholic Church came to light, Ring was homing in on schools in California, bringing the most egregious cases to trial and securing record-breaking verdicts.

robust practice focused on sexual abuse, harassment and civil rights litigation.

The past decade, of course, has been an active time to be doing this type of work. Weatherford and Ring have seen the impact of high-profile abuse cases on jurors, as the scrutiny of the cases against Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffery Epstein have provided an education for the general public. These days, with the recent increases in the statutes of limitations for sexual abuse cases, the attorneys at Taylor & Ring are handling an influx of older victims who are finally ready to seek justice.

They couldn’t have come to a better place. Weatherford has secured tens of millions of dollars in rewards for her clients in recent years, including a $25.3M verdict against a school in Long Beach for four years of abuse, and $4M for a woman who was raped at gunpoint at a shopping mall.

In 2002, Ring joined forces with renowned personal injury attorney John Taylor to open the California-based Taylor & Ring, which has since grown to 10 lawyers. The firm maintains a fairly even balance of sexual abuse and personal injury cases, including major car accident and police misconduct cases.

In the last two years alone, Ring has secured two separate results of nearly $50M each: a $46.2M settlement for the victims of Eric Uller, the City of Santa Monica employee and serial child abuser, and a $45.4M jury award against LA County at the Department of Children and Family Services for the years-long abuse of a young girl.

Natalie Weatherford joined the firm 10 years ago, straight out of law school, and has since grown a

Even more encouraging? Neither of them are slowing down any time soon.

54

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY ALISON PREECE

Lawdragon: From where I stand, there has been a significant shift in terms of sexual harassment in recent years. As a woman, I’m finding men to be more aware and respectful. In the media, it seems there’s been a real collective learning about what constitutes harassment, and an unlearning in terms of how abuse victims may or may not behave after the fact. From your long view on the legal end of things, have things changed?

Dave Ring: Well. How long do you have?

LD: I have all day.

DR: I started handling these cases in the mid 1990s, when I was a very young lawyer. Wildly, wildly different back then. These cases would settle very quickly and quietly, and probably not for a ton of money because back then, “Oh my gosh, it’s so shameful to come forward, and you don’t want to put your name on a lawsuit.” That’s what all the defense attorneys would say, and victims were afraid to come forward. They didn’t want to go through the rigors of litigation, and I don’t blame them.

You didn’t have the access to information back then either, so these cases, they’d settle quietly, quickly.

There was very little publicity. Then things started to change in the early 2000s with the Catholic Church crisis, which opened a lot of eyes to organizational abuse.

Let me pause, so I can be clear about something. In the legal community, there’s a real distinction between sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Sexual harassment is handled by an employment lawyer.

You get harassed in the workplace. We do some of

that, but we really represent victims who’ve been sexually abused, in a church or a school or a youth organization, that type of thing. Lawyers look at those cases as very different cases.

Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church started to come to light in the early 2000s. That whole scandal really opened a lot of eyes to organizational coverup, as these massive organizations like the Catholic Church would pass priests around, even though they knew.

They knew that they were abusing kids, and that, obviously, really angered a lot of people. The public learned about it from news articles and media coverage, and I think it really opened their eyes to the harm that was done, and how it could be prevented.

Following that, at least here in California, the awards started getting bigger and bigger, because jurors understood the incredible harm that people suffered being abused as a child. Juries really would get angry at the schools, or churches. After a jury trial they realized, “They knew, and they didn’t do anything about it, and this teacher or perpetrator went on and molested others.” That awareness led to much bigger awards.

Early on a lot of my cases were against schools. It’d be teachers or coaches who were sexually abusing students, and they could be young students, like seven or eight years old. I also had a lot of cases with teenage students, in high school. They’re manipulated and coerced into having this illegal relationship.

Bringing us up to now, with the #MeToo movement taking off around 2017, that just took it to a whole new level. I mean, that really, really, really educated the public as to the power dynamics of abuse, and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

55

law school was working for a solo personal injury lawyer. I absolutely loved it. Just the idea of working for one client, who has been through one bad thing, and you really help them focus on that and get a tangible result. It really felt like what a lawyer should be doing, helping someone who’s been through something horrible, helping them to get better, and helping them get compensation for what they’ve been through. Also, punishing the wrongdoer.

Then, when I passed the bar 10 years ago, I interviewed with Taylor & Ring.

It was the first real job I had as a lawyer, and it’s the only job I’ve had as a lawyer. I love it. It’s an incredible place to be.

Natalie Weatherford

Photo by Amy Cantrell

the Harvey Weinsteins of the world. It really took the stigma off of victims coming forward, because now you had all sorts of victims saying, “Yeah, I want my name attached to this. I’m not ashamed to come out and say I was sexually assaulted, or I was abused as a kid, or sexually assaulted as an adult female.” That’s super powerful, and has been a massive change.

LD: Natalie, you’ve been practicing law for the past 10 years, correct? How did you decide to get into this particular practice area?

Natalie Weatherford: When I first became a lawyer, I tried a couple of different practices. I tried entertainment law, and I tried working for a big defense firm through law school. The first job I got out of 56

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Sexual abuse and issues regarding sexual harassment, they were always on my radar, but I never realized I could have this type of practice where I exclusively represent victims of sexual abuse. I didn’t know it existed, but now, living it for 10 years? It’s my dream practice. It’s really fulfilling. It’s dynamic, and it’s real litigation. You get to go into court, and fight for a specific purpose, and for someone who’s been through something horrible.

You get to, hopefully, change their life a little bit.

LD: Can you tell us about a recent case or client where your work in court really made a difference in their lives?

NW: John Taylor and I handled a case two years ago that went all the way to trial. It was venued in Long Beach, and it was a sexual abuse case where a 12-year-old boy was sexually abused by his coach, at a private school, over the course of three years. The sexual abuse was horrific. He was subjected to the abuse several times a week, for three years, and he didn’t say anything about the abuse until he was an adult. Fast forward 10 years after the abuse occurs, and his life is a mess. He had gotten into drugs, he had failed out of schools. And it was all because of this abuse, that he had been keeping locked up for so many years.

When he finally gets the courage to tell, he’s involved in a criminal case. The criminal case is a mess. Then, he comes to us, and we handle his civil case. His name is Steven, the plaintiff, and he was one of the most damaged, but also deserving, clients I’ve ever represented. He was going through drug problems, family problems. He had zero hope. He was so ashamed of the abuse. He felt like nothing was going to happen.

He did not have any hope that there would ever be any light at the end of the tunnel, with his criminal case and with his civil case, because he just spent so many years trying not to think about it, trying to put the abuse behind him.

The case took two years, all the way to verdict. At the end of the day, we got him a $25.3M verdict.

It changed his whole life. Before the trial started, he went to rehab, because he had a horrible drug problem resulting from the abuse. He was just trying not to feel his feelings. The day before the trial started, he was released from rehab. He testified at the trial, stayed clean, and then he got his verdict. He’s been clean ever since. We still keep in touch with him, and his whole life changed. He says, it’s because people believed him, and were willing to go after the people who failed to protect him.

LD: That is such a beautiful result, and really underscores the importance of what you’re doing.

NW: It was a really tough trial, too. The liability wasn’t really straightforward, and you never know what jurors are going to do. He had such a checkered past that, you worry the jurors might hold that against him. But, we had such amazing jurors in that case, they really all just sympathized and understood what he had gone through. He got a great verdict, at the end of the day. Even better, he is clean now. He’s married.

He has a stepson. He’s doing great.

I think about him all the time, too. He was in my life almost every day during his case, just because I was like, “Steven, please take care of yourself. We’re working over here, on your case. You just work on your life, and hopefully it’ll all come together, in the end.” And it did.

LD: That’s so moving. Dave, back in the mid-90s when you started this type of work, it sounds like it was an uphill battle to get any real justice for these victims. What made you stick with it?

DR: Like a lot of young lawyers, in some senses I fell into it, but I also recognized it as an area with room for growth. Personally, I really, really enjoyed handling the cases. I also appreciated that you can’t go wrong in these cases. They’re so righteous, and no one was doing them.

So for me, I was an associate at a different law firm back then, a third- or fourth-year lawyer. Pat McNicholas, who I worked for then and who’s a great friend of mine still, we tried one of these cases. No one was trying these cases, everyone settled them. But the school district low-balled us so we said, “We’re going to trial.” We tried it in Los Angeles, and we got a $10M verdict, which back in 1996 was unheard of.

Then sure enough, it made headlines and all that, and suddenly the phone calls started coming in.

At the time, I said to myself, “This will never last.” We really focused a lot on schools back then, and after

The things that these people go through to bring their case, to report to the police, have a civil case, jump through all these hoops and undergo all this scrutiny — no one does this voluntarily. No one does this for money. Natalie Weatherford that first big verdict and the resulting media storm, I said, “This will become the number one priority for schools to fix. This isn’t going to happen again.

They’re going to see this verdict, and they’re going to put an end to this. There’s no way they’re going to allow this to happen in schools.” Here I am, 25 years later, and it’s still an epidemic. It’s very sad.

Some school districts, I will say, have done a phenomenal job educating and supervising, and really trying to prevent this from happening. I’ve never had to sue the same school district twice. Once we’re done with the case, a lot of districts change their policies, and increase their education of teachers and supervisors and administrators. It’s incremental change, but it’s really positive, and it’s fulfilling.

Other schools and organizations have done an absolutely terrible job and continue to do a terrible job, and for whatever reason, do not make it a priority.

LD: With that first big verdict, was it a challenge to get the victim to agree to a trial?

DR: His parents didn’t want to go, but to this kid’s credit, he did. Great kid, great family, and this kid

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

57

was phenomenal. The jury, they understood him.

Back then, the defense always banked on this idea that, “You can’t put this kid on the stand. You can’t put him through that.” I’ll tell you what, these trials and cases are so empowering to victims, because they finally have control, and they see the process, and they turn the tables on the perpetrator. It’s very empowering.

LD: Natalie, I read one of your recent pieces in The Advocate about safeguarding your plaintiff in sexual misconduct trials using the various legal protections that have been put in place in recent years. I was particularly interested in section 2017.220 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which makes it harder to bring a plaintiff’s sexual history into the case. Can you talk about the difference that’s made?

NW: Section 2017 has been around for a little while now, and it’s really important to these kinds of cases.

Especially if you’ve got, let’s say, an older victim of abuse. The defense will try and bring up their sexual history or their present sexual relationships, to try and paint them in some negative light, or to say that they somehow consented to the abuse.

The law protects them from that. That’s really important because, a lot of victims, especially when we’re initially interviewing them for cases, they’re so worried that they’re going to have some smear campaign launched against them. Where, people are asking about all of their sexual relationships and everything, to try and prove that maybe somehow, they participated in their own sexual abuse. So, that’s a really incredible tool, to keep that kind of information out of the case.

LD: Good. Because it’s irrelevant.

NW: Exactly, it’s not relevant. Just because you’re a human who has consensual sexual relationships, doesn’t mean that you’re any more likely to consent to sexual abuse. People still try it, they still try and get that information in through other means, but courts now are a lot better at stopping those kinds of tactics.

LD: People are still trying those tactics?

NW: Oh yes. This happens all the time, even recently. I’ll have a deposition of my plaintiff, and she’s a teenage girl or a young woman. Well, the defense will have printed out their Instagram pictures, or pictures of them from a cruise with their family, where they’re in a bathing suit. And they’ll bring them out in the deposition. I’m just like, “Absolutely not. You’ve got to be kidding me, these have nothing to do with the case.”

58

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

They want to embarrass them. They want to make them look bad. And it’s like, “This is 2020. This is a victim of sexual abuse.” It’s hard to believe that still happens today, but it does. I don’t put up with it in my practice, and no one at our firm does. I’ve seen other lawyers just kind of let it happen, though, and it’s really awful. There are some really sick tactics that lawyers on the other side will use, to try and attack the victim.

LD: Unbelievable. From your perspective, practicing the last 10 years, was the #MeToo movement a massive sea change in terms of how this these cases were getting litigated? I was watching the Weinstein trial with the rest of the world, and I thought it was great how the victims’ lawyers brought in experts to discuss the psychology of abuse victims, how they often don’t react in ways we might think they should.

NW: It’s so nice to hear, that people are understanding that more now. In representing, unfortunately, hundreds of people who have been victims, I’ve never had two victims react to their abuse in the same way.

Everyone reacts different. Some still want to continue talking to the perpetrator. Some don’t immediately acknowledge that they’ve been abused, until many, many years later. There’s no textbook way to react.

But for some reason, people think that you should react in a certain way. Or they think, “Oh, I would react this way. So this person needs to react in a certain way.” It’s like, “No, no, no, no, no. It’s totally different.”

The impact of the public’s education in this space has been twofold. First, people and especially jurors are realizing that victims often don’t tell about their abuse until a significant amount of time after it happened. That’s just the nature of the injury, the way that abuse works. The victim blames themselves.

They just want to move on with their lives, and keep it a secret. Finally, when they’re brave enough to tell, they were previously precluded from bringing a lawsuit, because they passed the statute of limitations, which is the time they were allowed to bring the suit.

More people are understanding that, and that is such a key component to bringing these types of cases. It’s not like a victim gets sexually assaulted, and then runs and tells their parents the next day.

No, they keep it inside for a really long time. Seeing the public understand that is massively important, and the most significant, important change in sexual abuse cases, I’d say, coming out of #MeToo. On the other side, with all the attention that sexual abuse has gotten in the media, people are acutely aware that these lawsuits can result in a significant

amount of money. I think that has caused some skepticism, in a way, that didn’t necessarily exist before.

They hear about people suing celebrities and these big payouts, and they think, maybe this is just a way for people to make money.

My response to that is always: The things that these people go through, that women and men who are victims of abuse go through to bring their case, to report to the police, have a civil case, jump through all these hoops and undergo all this scrutiny — no one does this voluntarily. No one does this for money. These are people who are suffering and who are brave, and who come forward because they want to make a difference and have their voice and story heard. Also, because it’s eating them up inside, and they need to talk about it, they need to do something about it.

LD: Can you talk more about the statute of limitations for these types of cases? We’re seeing the law evolve in the right direction there, correct?

DR: Across the nation, there’s been a real surge in states enlarging the statute of limitations for victims to bring a lawsuit. New York, in January of this year, they enlarged their statute of limitations, where people who are in their 50s can bring a lawsuit now for being abused as a child.

Some states haven’t done that yet, but a lot have. In California, they also enlarged the statute in January, with Assembly Bill 218, which made it a lot easier for adults to bring a lawsuit for what happened to them as children, against organizations. We’re really seeing the impact of that. A lot of victims have come forward to our firm since January, it’s really amazing.

NW: Yes, we’ve been having a lot of really righteous cases come in since AB218 went into effect, from people who previously were barred because of the statute. We’re seeing a lot of victims who are well into adulthood, 50 and 60 year old men and women, who are finally ready to talk about their abuse and want to know if they can do something legally.

Dave Ring, Photo by Amy Cantrell

LD: Was your firm involved in any lobbying for AB218 to pass?

DR: Yes, lawyers played a role in it, but it’s really the victim advocate groups that were behind it. They tried in the past, about seven years ago, and it got all the way to Governor Brown’s desk and he vetoed it.

Then Gavin Newsom came in as governor last year, and he signed it.

Some states still haven’t done it. Some states refuse to do it. But a lot of states have, and it’s really beneficial.

LD: You’ve brought sexual abuse cases against schools, churches, youth groups. Do you find that one group or type of institution is more challenging than others, in terms of their cooperation?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

59

DR: That’s a good question. It’s interesting, you would think that when a lawsuit like this gets filed against any one of these organizations they would go, “Oh my gosh, this is horrible. We got to do the right thing here.” I’m telling you, nine out of 10 times they fight it like any other lawsuit, and they put the victim through a lot of stress in the lawsuit. It’s just shocking to me. They treat it like anything else, and they do their best to try to beat the victim down in the case. Whether that’s the lawyers doing it, or the client giving the green light for the lawyers doing it, it continues to amaze me.

There are some organizations that handle it the right way. The Catholic Church has come a long way, at least out here in Los Angeles. The LA Archdiocese, they really, really, really turned it around. They had to, of course; it was despicable, what they did. But they’ve really turned it around, where they handle these cases with kid gloves now.

Schools are always challenging because every school district is its own entity, so they all handle it differently. There’s no overarching decision maker there.

So you’re dealing with a superintendent who may consider it a priority, or not. Schools just seem to have a difficult time making the right decision.

LD: Sexual abuse litigation is only about half of the work you do at the firm, correct? The other half is personal injury. This strikes me as a unique set-up.

Do the practices dovetail into one another?

DR: You’re right, it is very unusual that a firm can do both. It works with us because my long-time law

It’s interesting, you would think that when a lawsuit like this gets filed against any one of these organizations they would go, “Oh my gosh, this is horrible. We got to do the right thing here.” I’m telling you, nine out of 10 times they fight it like any other lawsuit, and they put the victim through a lot of stress in the lawsuit. It’s just shocking to me. Dave Ring 60

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

partner, John Taylor, is one of the greatest trial lawyers around, and has tried a million personal injury cases.

When we joined forces that is exactly what we wanted to do, we wanted to do half and half. He brought the personal injury cases and experience to the table, and I brought these sexual abuse cases to the table.

Now we cross over all the time. He’s handled some huge sexual abuse cases. I’ve handled some huge personal injury cases. It’s great, and you learn a lot trying a personal injury type of case, that really helps you try a sexual abuse case.

The dynamics in the courtroom are different, but it’s still a jury trial, and your ultimate goal is to have the jury find in your favor and award the victim a lot of compensation that they deserve. So the goal is the same in both. Really, it’s a great setup. The lawyers that work here really enjoy it, because they aren’t just doing the same type of case over and over again.

There’s only a few firms in California that handle sexual abuse cases. With the really unique cases, you’ve got to be very careful how you handle them, because these victims, they require a lot of support during the litigation. If you’re the type of firm that you talk to your client once every few months, you’re doing them a disservice. It’s so personal to them, it’s so anxiety-ridden, and it’s not a car accident. It’s horrific stuff. With those cases there’s a lot more client interaction throughout the entire case, because that’s super important.

LD: How’s it been for your firm working through the pandemic?

NW: We’ve been remote like everyone else, but last month we opened up our offices as an option for people. I think we all like to come into the office, during the day. We only have about half the staff here.

If anyone wants to stay home, they can stay home.

But we keep the office open for people to come in when they want, and have a quiet space to work.

DR: No one has to come in, but people want to come in because it breaks up the monotony.

LD: An office actually sounds really lovely right now.

Does it look like you guys might be handling any remote trials?

NW: Yes, in fact we’re going to have our first fully remote trial in October. It’s going to be really interesting. The court wants you to host it all, on your own.

Logistically, it’s going to be, probably a nightmare.

But, it needs to happen. We can’t just wait another year, or however long it’s going to take. This is on a case that we’ve had for a couple of years, and we

were all teed up to start trial right before the California shutdown happened. Back in March, we had everything ready. We were starting our first day of trial, and then, the governor’s order came down and it all just stopped. I don’t know how the remote trial is going to work exactly, especially with jury selection, but we’ll find out.

LD: The work your firm does is really a public good in and of itself. But are you also involved in any charitable or pro bono works?

NW: The firm as a whole supports a lot of local rape treatment centers. Sometimes they have cases they want us to help with, or completely pro bono issues that they want us to take on. We do that.

The firm is great. I can take any case I want, and work on it for money or for free. If there was a case that I felt really passionate about, and it’s happened before, where I went to my partners and said, “Hey, I want to do this. Probably not going to make a lot of money, but it’s really important.” Or, “We’re not going to make any money at all, but this is a person who needs help.”

They’ll allow me to do that, and they’ll fund it. There have been a couple of cases, here and there, where it was a survivor who was really out of options. Maybe the police didn’t want to take the case, or they weren’t finding any sort of representation. If there’s some small way to help and we have the time and we have the resources, we’ll always help.

DR: The thing that’s incredibly important to me is we play by the rules, we’re incredibly ethical. We never do anything underhanded, and I think jurors sense that. They sense the credibility that the lawyers here have in a courtroom. That said, we’re tough. I mean, we’re tough. We don’t back down, but we’re always professional. I tell this to young lawyers all the time: You can be professional and still be tough.

You don’t have to be a jerk to be tough. You can be reasonable and ethical, but you can still be tough, and that’s what people expect. These clients want a tough lawyer. They want someone who fights for them, and I always do that. I think it’s real hard to win if you’re not banging some heads on the other side. I think if you’re nice in litigation you’re going to get steamrolled.

Let’s face it, most jurors do not want to be down at the courthouse, being summoned to jury duty. They’re not happy that they have to be there. Then all of a sudden, those 50 juror candidates come into the room, and the judge reads a short statement of the case. I’m telling you, the second they hear what the case is about, that some kid got sexually abused and we’re alleging the school’s at fault, and the school said they didn’t do anything wrong — they all come to attention, and they all want to sit on that jury. They’re fascinated by it, and they want to do right, and they want to be there.

DR: The lawyers here do a lot of writing on these subjects, and I give a lot of speeches, mostly for other lawyers who want to do these types of cases.

We’re also really involved with organizations that help victims, whether it’s volunteering our time or contributing financially. There’s some really great organizations in Los Angeles that are there for victims, when they first come forward and disclose, like rape crisis centers as Natalie mentioned. We’re really supportive of those places.

So I never pander. I never pander to the jurors. I’m definitely passionate, but jurors want information quick, especially nowadays. They don’t want to be bored. They don’t want you to waste their time, and so we really focus on putting the case on quick, and making it interesting. Every fact is not created equal.

You put on the major facts and you hustle through witnesses, and you don’t bore the crap out of the jury, and you don’t object to every question the defense is asking. You get the case done quickly, and you get it to the jury so they can decide the outcome.

LD: How would you both describe your styles as litigators?

LD: Dave, is there a case that stands out for you as particularly memorable from throughout your career?

NW: I just try to be myself. I think that sometimes, lawyers can go into court and they change their voice, or they change the way that they speak. They try and put on some sort of facade. But for me, I just want to walk into court and be exactly who I am outside of court, inside of court. I think jurors relate to that.

You want to speak to them in a language that they understand. The language I understand is, how I speak to my friends and my family. So I try to bring that into court.

DR: There’s one that took place in 2013, so before #MeToo. It had been 10 years since the Catholic Church cases were really in the news, so there hadn’t been a lot in the media on sexual abuse of late. It was one of these cases where you have a teacher manipulating a 16-year-old girl. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people in the world who look at a case like that and say, “Well, hey, she’s 16.” The defense attorney and the school district really took a super aggressive defense to the case. Blamed the parents, blamed the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

61

I tell this to young lawyers all the time: You can be professional and still be tough. You don’t have to be a jerk to be tough. You can be reasonable and ethical, but you can still be tough, and that’s what people expect. These clients want a tough lawyer. They want someone who fights for them, and I always do that. I think it’s real hard to win if you’re not banging some heads on the other side. I think if you’re nice in litigation you’re going to get steamrolled.

David Ring

girl. I mean, just scorched the Earth on the defense, really put them through the ringer.

LD: Like, what was she was wearing and how she was acting, all that kind of stuff?

DR: Yep, blame the victim. Blame the victim defense.

Blame the parents. “She’s not harmed, she wanted it.” It’s truly outrageous to me, but some jurors might think like that.

They offered next to nothing, and it went to trial in a very conservative jurisdiction. It was a very hard-fought trial. They were just as nasty in trial as they were during the course of the case. I was truly worried. I thought, are these jurors buying this? That it’s this girl’s fault, and the parents’ fault? I was concerned, because they were just going hard.

The jury, they didn’t buy it. They found for this girl and they were pissed off at the school district, and really pissed off at the aggressive tactics of the school district. That really told me that we’re doing the right thing on how we put these cases on. The jurors, they see through the smoke screen of the defense trying to blame the teenage girl 62

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

for what happened with the creepy, manipulative, 40-year-old teacher who totally took advantage of her.

LD: I’m so glad the jury was able to see that, especially back then.

DR: These days, jurors walk into the courtroom and they already get it. They just get it, not like before. It angers them. The cases that go to trial are the ones where the school did something. They knew. They knew, or they absolutely should have known. They had a ton of red flags, and they ignored it, and that’s what really pisses off jurors.

LD: Are you noticing that some of these schools and institutions are pushing for settlements more or wanting to avoid trial now, in a way that they weren’t before?

DR: It’s difficult to say. I’ve been doing this so many years, they know I’ll go to trial. I’m not an unknown quantity to them. Two years ago I took a case to trial, and we got a $45M verdict.

LD: Oh wow. What was the case?

DR: The victim was a girl that was horribly abused.

She had been abused when she was eight or nine years old really, and it was really bad, truly horrific.

She was 15 at the time of the trial.

It was a milestone case for me, because I knew that we were going to win the case, and I knew this girl had been seriously harmed. But I truly had no clue how much they were going to award this girl. They could’ve awarded her $2M. For them to award her that amount of money was really gratifying, because it was a clear signal that they appreciated the incredible amount of harm she went through, and that she is going to go through the rest of her life.

That was really gratifying, hearing that jury verdict, because these cases are never about what we call economic damages. There are no lost wages, and therapy bills are very modest. The jury is awarding money for emotional distress. There’s no formula for that. They’re not given any instructions on how to do that, and they really have to rely on the lawyer in the closing argument to say, “Here’s how you compensate her for her emotional harm.” They got it, and so that was really gratifying.

15

JOIN US IN CELEBRATING

lawdragon.com

YEARS

OF EXCEPTIONAL LEGAL JOURNALISM

SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED.

BY ALISON PREECE

THERIUM PROVES THE MERITS OF LITIGATION FUNDING – JUST ASK SOME UK POSTAL PROVIDERS WHO FOUND JUSTICE WITH THEIR HELP Money should never stand in the way of justice. But too often, corporations (or governments, or high-net worth individuals) who find themselves in a dispute will “lawyer up,” hiring heavyweight law firms and burying legitimate claims in an avalanche of filings and other legal maneuvers.

The playing field started to level off with the advent of litigation financing, which was still a nascent industry in 2009 when Neil Purslow co-founded Therium Capital Management with John Byrne, the firm’s global CEO. Purslow, the firm’s Chief Investment Officer, worked as a solicitor in the UK, in-house and in private practice, before taking this chance on a new, but potentially game-changing, field.

Therium’s U.S. CEO, Eric Blinderman, was a litigator at Proskauer Rose in the U.S., and also served in the Department of Defense and Department of Justice, before joining the rapidly growing world of litigation finance. They haven’t looked back. To date, Therium has raised over $1B in funds for plaintiff entities, supporting $36B worth of claims – claims which otherwise might never have been brought.

64

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Last year, Purslow and Byrne started Therium Access, a charitable branch of the company dedicated to providing grants to individuals and organizations that facilitate access to justice and bridge the justice gap – getting us that much closer to true justice for all.

Lawdragon: Litigation financing is a flourishing industry. But for those still unfamiliar, could you give us a bird’s-eye description?

Eric Blinderman: From a 30,000-foot perspective and at its most basic, what Therium does is provide capital to entities, corporations, small, medium, or large, which for a broad array of reasons are unable to, or choose not to, fund their plaintiff’s side litigation. They seek capital from Therium to fund such litigation and in exchange, if successful, Therium gets back the capital that it provided to fund the litigation, plus a return that is negotiated with our clients. The funding is non-recourse, so if a matter loses, Therium does not recoup its investment.

That’s the most basic and simple description. Things can get much more complicated, of course. Every

transaction is unique and built around each client’s needs and the investment itself. If you look at an interest in a single piece of litigation as a building block for the creation of an infinite variety of investments, it can become much more complex.

For example, Therium can fund anything directly or indirectly related to commercial litigation. That may mean that our clients have an interest in one or more matters. The moment you start bundling together multiple litigations for purposes of creating a financial structure, you can then get much more complicated portfolio funding products, lines of credit, and other financial instruments that unlock illiquid interests in those litigations. We provide our clients with the benefit of off-balance sheet financing and the ability to preserve capital.

LD: Neil, you’re a co-founder at Therium. What made you believe in this industry? Did you know that this would be a successful field to move into?

Neil Purslow: John Byrne and I launched Therium in 2009, which coincided with the growth of litigation finance as an industry. The impetus in the UK was a change in the UK legal position, which actually came through in the early part of the 2000s. That was what led to the growth of the industry on this side of the Atlantic, off the back of the industry’s establishment in Australia where it originated.

LD: Interesting. I think a lot of people think of it as a U.S. industry.

NP: That’s a common misconception. People often think of the U.S. as being more litigious and therefore litigation finance must have originated there but that’s not the case! The principal driver of growth in litigation finance is client demand for capital, and the reason why it grew first in Australia and then the UK was because those were jurisdictions where lawyers couldn’t work on a contingency fee basis, unlike in the U.S. Traditional providers of finance were not equipped to evaluate litigation risk or to make significant investments over a long period of time in legal matters, so you had this unmet client need for capital in those jurisdictions that wasn’t being addressed. Of course, the market has evolved to be much broader than this, and there is a very significant litigation finance market in the U.S. as well now, but it largely followed Australia and the UK. LD: Why did that law get changed in the first place in the UK? Was the purpose to level the playing field for people who couldn’t afford lawyers, or companies that were plaintiffs? Or was it sort of a sideways thing?

NP: There were legal restrictions on funding that had existed since Medieval times, until a handful of cases after the turn of the millennium from which it was clear that modern litigation funding was lawful and in fact had public policy benefits – benefiting businesses and consumers and helping to level the playing field.

LD: I noticed that charities are one of the types of clients that you have. Can you talk to me a little bit about that, and about the social justice aspect of what you do? Is that an active part of the process, seeking out people or groups with lower incomes who have a real need for this?

NP: Therium invests in the provision of social justice on a not-for-profit basis through Therium Access. The whole raison d’être of our business is to facilitate access to justice, based on an underlying premise that access to legal advice and access to the courts in order to obtain redress should be universal. Unfortunately, that’s far from reality and the justice gap in the UK for instance has been widening rather than narrowing in recent years. The genesis of the idea came from us seeing a number of cases, particularly in the early years, which were highly meritorious and capable of having tremendous social impact, but which were not viable from a commercial perspective.

On the commercial side, we don’t only fund cases where it’s David against Goliath. Most of the cases that we fund are corporate versus corporate where the merits are strong and where we can achieve a return for our investors. Nevertheless, the social purpose that underpins Therium is enabling parties to bring their disputes into a court or into an arbitration. That can be businesses funded on a commercial basis as well as the sorts of cases that might be funded by Therium Access.

Either way, our funding permits aggrieved parties to obtain a fair and just resolution of their disputes and this is of tremendous value to claimants themselves of course but also to society and the economy. Legal proceedings are expensive, and they should be financeable like other activities are financed.

LD: That’s so true. Can you tell us more about the mechanisms you use to fund the cases? Is it all funded from the litigation wins you’ve invested in, or do you have different financial products available?

NP: To step back, what our business does differently from most other investment firms is that we focus entirely on analyzing, understanding and pricing litigation risk – which of course traditional providers of capital, such as banks or private equity firms, are not equipped to do.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

65

have an extremely sophisticated understanding of our area. It took time and hard work to build the track record, win by win, to get to the point where we could credibly prove that this was an asset class capable of delivering attractive returns.

LD: Tell me about some of those wins. Are there any that stand out as turning points, where you thought, this is really working?

Eric Blinderman. Photo provided by the firm.

When we started, the primary business of Therium was investing in single cases. A lawyer would come to us and say, “I have a client who would like your funding please in order to pay me to litigate their case.” We would look at the case and invest in it if the matter had a high likelihood of success, sufficient quantum of damages, and other indicia that gave us comfort that the investment was sound. That was the core model and we still do that, day in, day out. However, now we also regularly fund through other structures such as portfolio arrangements with companies and law firms. There are lots of different avenues that permit Therium to deploy capital creatively so that we meet the needs of our clients and so that the matters our clients are litigating can progress. Our experience and knowledge of the law coupled with our investment process allows us to be flexible, so we can develop structures that meet the unique needs of each individual, corporate or law firm client of the firm.

LD: Interesting. Was access to capital a challenge when you were first getting started?

NP: Yes, it was! When we started in 2009, this was an unknown asset class. The fact that we were raising money during the financial crisis made the process much more challenging. And nobody had a track record because we were all launching for the first time. We built our investor base over the years and now have large-scale institutional investors that are investing across a wide range of asset classes but 66

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

EB: Every result is important to us, now as much as ever, and every success is hard won, but if they are important to us, they are all the more important to the clients. As a former federal prosecutor, I am conscious of and grateful for the fact that my work is focused on ensuring that individuals or others who have been wronged can prosecute their matters to conclusion. Just recently we had a win in a private commercial arbitration so I can’t talk about the details, but the final award granted our client the recovery that it was seeking. Equally as important, however, was a concurring opinion in which the arbitrator observed that the particular matter was the precise reason why funding existed. The arbitrator noted that the harms to the claimant were egregious and that the claimant’s business was ruined as a result.

The arbitrator went on to conclude that the claimant would never have been capable of prosecuting the matter to conclusion absent the provision of funding, that the provision of such funding had allowed the claimant to undo the harms that the respondent had visited upon it, and that the cost of such funding should be included in the award.

Separately from the moral imperative of assisting someone who has a wrong that needs righting, others come to Therium because they have a legitimate commercial or economic reason to preserve capital. For example, corporations will often come to us simply because a litigation may take three to five years to resolve and they need to either expand their business lines or preserve capital to expand their core business. That too is a win for Therium.

Other times, people come to us because they simply lack the resources to litigate their claims no matter how strong those claims might be. That means that they are suffering and would continue to suffer but for Therium’s assistance. So from my perspective, a win at its most basic involves Therium assisting those who don’t have the ability to prosecute a matter and permitting those individuals or entities to take that matter to conclusion, and ultimately right the wrong which precipitated them to file suit and come to us in the first place. Those also stick with me and mean a lot.

These types of things make you get up in the morning. Litigation at its core is about making sure that we are able to settle our disputes through a court of law. If people don’t have the ability to access the law, then you end up with a fundamental breakdown of the most basic elements of what makes society function. From my perspective that’s a very important reason and an important definition of how I quantify success. But don’t get me wrong, the IRRs that we generate for our investors are important too.

Even though the Post Office’s strategy of disruption failed, and the postmasters and postmistresses were vindicated, this case would not have succeeded without litigation funding. The defendant was a government entity with unlimited resources and prosecutorial powers. With Therium standing alongside the plaintiffs, they were able to level the playing field, withstand the worst of the Post Office’s litigation tactics, and ultimately win. Cases like this are, at its core, why funders like Therium exist.

NP: You’re reminding me of a win that is a good example here and worth talking about. This case was a UK case. It’s to do with the Post Office, which is a public organization, with postmasters and postmistresses, and people who run the counter to send your mail or buy your TV license. They are all independent businesses, but they all work within the same system and account back to the central postal organization, almost like a franchise.

LD: That’s incredible. It’s a great example of what the funding is there for and the sorts of things it can achieve, and also a great example of why it’s needed.

It’s the headwinds these people face. Only by getting together in a group, getting a funder behind them, and then hammering forward, could they get to that endpoint. How long were you working on that for?

What happened in this particular case was that the main postal organization introduced a new computer system. Like so many IT systems, it didn’t really work very well. It had an accounting side to it that had a glitch. The glitch caused the system to throw out incorrect numbers, so postmasters would sell stamps and enter the transaction into the system, but the computer system would report that there was money missing.

Although the post office was aware of the glitches, they still took enforcement action against the individual postmasters and postmistresses for the mischarged sums, even going so far in some cases as to prosecute them for theft, using prosecutorial powers that they have in the UK. Thus, postmasters and postmistresses went to prison even though the Post Office knew that the actual cause of the missing sums was its own faulty computer system.

To remedy things, the affected postmasters and postmistresses formed an action group and Therium funded their case. The purpose of the case was for them to get economic redress and, equally important for them, to clear their names.

The Post Office fought the case vociferously, running up costs and arguing every conceivable point. The Post Office even tried to get the judge removed at one stage, saying that he was biased. The Post Office was unsuccessful all the way through and eventually settled on confidential terms but only after causing a huge amount of money to be spent. We had to increase our investment twice as a result of the Post Office’s very aggressive litigation tactics.

NP: Close to four years. It wasn’t particularly long, but it was incredibly hard fought. That wasn’t the longest. There’s an additional one at the other end of the timing spectrum that represents another David and Goliath example.

In this other case, a professor invented the technology for testing blood for diabetes. His test consists of strips in which you can dip your blood to determine glucose levels. He invented these strips at home using his daughter’s microscope. But he worked for a large multinational company and under the employment provisions of the company, anything he invented and that the company patented belonged to the company.

Although the company patented the professor’s test strips, it never marketed the invention or spent any money on marketing. Instead, the company licensed the patent to others who marketed it and the company made about £20M by doing absolutely nothing except applying for a patent and without sharing anything with the professor.

There’s a particular provision of the patents legislation in the UK that isn’t very commonly used but that allows an employee to bring a claim for a share of any “outstanding benefit” that the employee delivers to their employer as a result of the employer patenting his work. This professor brought a claim against this large multinational corporation for a share of the proceeds that the company had made from licensing out his invention and for which they had invested nothing.

He brought the claim, and his lawyers were engaged on a no-win, no-fee basis, which is like a contingency but without the share of damages. We made a very

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

67

small investment to pay for external costs. His case took about 14 years and we were invested for close to 10 years during which he went to the Court of Appeal twice and ultimately all the way to the UK Supreme Court where he was ultimately vindicated completely. It was almost the first case that we ever funded and was a tiny investment, but we really wanted it to succeed, so when he won, we were delighted for him.

So yes, there are some very gratifying cases where you’re really pleased to see the right outcome. It goes back to the underlying reason of why we do this in the first place. Beyond a narrow investment methodology which is how you make it work, you do it to support those who were wronged and who have strong claims.

LD: That must have been so satisfying. Now, is this year throwing a wrench in things? Can you talk about how Therium, or the larger industry, has been impacted by the economic fallout from the current pandemic? Have things sped up, slowed down…?

EB: Covid-19 has definitely changed things. It’s changed the nature of how business is transacted across all sectors of the economy and it has also changed how every business, including Therium, must operate. At its most basic, the primary issue is to make sure that everyone who works with us is protected, safe, and that we’re minimizing the physical risk of exposure. That’s dramatically changed how we operate at its most simple level, from remote meetings, at-home working environments and the constant debate about whether and how we’re going to revert back to a more standard communal office environment. As part of that process, we are constantly rethinking our infrastructure needs in the short, medium and long term and with a fundamental goal of ensuring that people don’t get sick during a global pandemic.

The pandemic has also changed how we underwrite and work with our clients. Health and safety really for them too is a core concern and the rest are details.

But those details matter too.

From an academic perspective, I would often assert that litigation funding is a non-correlated asset class, which means that it’s not tied to the broader markets. Litigation continues in good economies and bad economies. In some ways it’s countercorrelated, meaning that certain kinds and types of litigation will increase in down economies. In theory then, litigation funding should either be flat or increase during the course of an economic downturn. From a practical perspective, this aca68

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

demic perspective has proven correct and Therium is more busy than ever.

It makes a lot of sense because we provide capital to entities that otherwise are seeking to de-risk or are not otherwise capable of bearing the cost of litigation. If your cashflows have gone to zero in the span of a single government shutdown order and you are handling claims that have value, but you are no longer capable of paying to prosecute those claims, then you’re going to look for alternative providers of capital like litigation finance companies to help you bridge that gap.

NP: I think on this side of the Atlantic, we certainly have been more busy over this period, but I couldn’t say that the cases we’re seeing are directly Covid19-related, although there are some clear examples, for instance in insurance.

I think there’s an interesting comparison here with the way the industry operated after the financial crisis.

Therium was active during that period, but the industry was much less mature. The 2008 financial crisis spawned lots of litigation that took time to progress through the system and many years later, we were still seeing financial crisis-related litigation funding cases coming to us because of the time it took to get the claims off the ground. I expect this time there will be another wave of cases that emerge, particularly in the insolvency world and general commercial disputes as the economic realities of Covid-19 come through. The major difference between the 2008 financial crisis and now, is that cases should not languish in the same way because our industry is much more mature, lawyers are so much more aware of how litigation funding operates and litigation funding is much more readily accessible for those who will need or want it.

LD: Before Covid, did your firm have strategic plans for growth? If so, are those still in place?

NP: We’re absolutely still pursuing our pre-Covid growth plans. We are where we wanted to be, which is in all of the major markets for funding. Our view has always been that there will be a small number of very large leading global players in this industry, and Therium is one of them.

Geographically speaking, there are some regions which have potential but are not yet developed. We are watching and waiting to see how the legal and economic situation in those regions evolve and to determine whether we should place boots on the ground there. We’re also gradually and deliberately building our headcount, but it’s more about quality of

people and financial scale rather than total numbers of employees.

LD: So everyone’s really busy.

NP: You don’t apply the same metrics as you do for a law firm. You don’t count the number of partners or the number of lawyers and think, more is better.

Here, the fact that we have a much tighter headcount than other funders is a positive, but it means there is never a dull moment.

LD: Without giving away your secret sauce, can you maybe give me some top-level factors that you look at when you decide to invest in a case?

NP: One of our investors very early on said to me, “I don’t know why you don’t just focus on short-tail cases that will win.” That was perhaps a statement of the obvious, but it is certainly our primary goal to invest in cases that will resolve successfully and, ideally, quickly.

The touchstone of what we’re doing is assessing whether any particular investment will succeed, and will it work economically for all stakeholders? Obviously, many questions flow from that, like, what is the case worth if it resolves successfully? Will we be able to enforce any judgment or award? Then there are budgetary questions. How much is it going to cost us to get us to the end of this and how long might it take? As I say, there are cases that can be very hard fought and that can cost a lot more than what you initially budgeted. If we commit to funding a case, will our clients and investors benefit? That’s really the lodestar of what we’re trying to do.

LD: In that process, do you have a rubric or a point system where you try to figure out the likelihood that this is going to succeed? How do you decide?

NP: Each underwriting opportunity is led by the investment team member working on that particular case. We have a standardized approach to answering the various questions needed to fund a matter, however it isn’t a tick-the-box exercise where you say, “I ticked these various boxes, and the case got this score” such that funding is warranted. There’s a lot of analysis that is required to understand the information needed to make an investment decision and this is where having extensive experience comes in. After that comes the application of judgment to that analysis so that we can form a view about whether an opportunity is good or bad. It’s a really interesting confluence of core legal skills, financial skills and then decision-making skills. Then, each investment team member needs to make a balanced

Neil Purslow. Photo provided by the firm.

risk-weighted decision about whether an opportunity stands up. The whole team has to be good at that process and it requires a lot of analysis and good judgment. Obviously, we’ve got a host of Investment Committee structures and checks and balances but that’s the core of the exercise that every investment team member has to carry out constantly. When new investment team members join, it takes them time to learn how to do the analysis, and how to calibrate their internal barometer, if you like, to make those investment decisions. It’s a real craft.

LD: It’s pretty fascinating. It’s got to be a challenge, and an interesting one. You said before you take about three to five percent of the cases that come to you?

NP: Yes. As well as the pure legal and financial considerations, we also need to examine the human element: the client, the legal team, their track record, their billing practices and a host of other details.

It’s like private equity investing except the business plan is the litigation strategy and the management team is a combination of the lawyers and the client.

As you are going to have to work with the client and the legal team, you also need to be comfortable with them, their business practices, and then try and work out in the context of the case whether it will be successful a number of years out. It’s a very interesting exercise in trying to navigate some of the softer dynamics along with the narrow legal analysis and investment analysis on the page.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

69

CAN A LAW FIRM built on a cornerstone of professional excellence stand for something more? CAN IT PROVE DIVERSITY, inclusion and public service go beyond slogans and are rather indispensable contributors to greatness – and a crucial element truly aligned with its clients’ goals? CAN A LAW FIRM BE BOTH GREAT AND GOOD? The founders of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila said “Yes” to those questions five years ago. Our interviews with almost 40 lawyers and staff revealed their belief has been borne out in amazing success. And a shared belief that THE REAL WORK HAS JUST BEGUN.

LAW FIRM SO REAL

BY KATRINA DEWEY

“And then a knee on the neck.”

Oppression. Inequality. Violence.

In many years, those words could be symbolic.

George Floyd.

May 25, 2020.

All too real.

Judge Patricia Brown Holmes watched in horror. As managing partner of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, the former prosecutor and judge knew her firm needed to talk about the killing of George Floyd. A Chicago native, she served as a special prosecutor in the killing of Laquan McDonald by the Chicago Police Department and knew all too well the desperate need for a new day.

“I live on the other side of the fence,” says Holmes, the only African-American female founding partner of a major U.S. law firm.

And that fence, FYI, is not where roughly 99 percent of elite law firm partners reside. A proud daughter of Chicago’s South Side, she rose to the top of Chicago law practice through tenacity, grit, intensely hard work and personality – not to mention some serious legal chops.

She had led the firm through the early months of the pandemic, aided by a team of legal professionals, many of whom joined the partners in founding Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila nearly five years ago.

Executive assistants, paralegals, file clerks, facilities managers – all would gather regularly in all-firm meetings and share reports on how things were progressing in their corner of the world. The flat, 70

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

equally apportioned boxes of Zoom remarkably symbolic of the firm’s democratic underpinnings.

While the Zoom boxes didn’t change, the plea that issued from them that day could not be denied. “I wanted the firm as a firm to understand that this was weighing heavy on the Black people in the firm and that these are your partners, your associates, your admins, your average everyday folks who are helping you do your work,” Holmes says. “You might look at [the killing of George Floyd] and say, ‘Oh wow, that’s a shame, that’s too bad.’ But they’re looking at it and saying, ‘Damn, that could be me.’”

An office assistant told how hurtful it was to him when he enters the elevator and is greeted by a tighter grip on a handbag.

Holmes told the story of her son, a “beanpole,” being stopped out front of their house because his license plate sticker is expired. He’s harassed in contrast to the son of another partner who was stopped for the same offense and given assistance in applying the sticker.

“Understanding that this stuff happens. And so the Black men in the firm started telling their stories.

Every one of them – every one of them from the top lawyer to the bottom, has had a gun pulled on them for nothing, has been stopped and harassed,” she says. “One guy tells a story of how he goes to the store, he buys a loaf of bread and he doesn’t take a

bag. The guy doesn’t need a bag for a loaf of bread.

He walks out, gets arrested.

“Having people hear those stories and understand that this is an almost universal view of a race of people – that my skin color is a weapon, I walk in a room and there is a view of me and I haven’t even said anything.

But I don’t walk into a room and see white people and go, ‘Oh my God.’ I walk into a room, ‘Hey, it’s people.’ But when people see me, it’s like, ‘Oh my God, oh no.’”

The conversation was a crossroads for a firm that has defined itself from the start by rethinking what it is to be a collection of legal professionals moored by first-class private representation, civic responsibility and the possibility of redefining what it means to be truly excellent.

Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila does not look, talk, act or walk like any other major law firm in America.

Beyond Holmes’ groundbreaking leadership role, the firm is known not just for its well-recognized talent, but also for its wrongful conviction exoneration practice. Led by founding partner Ron Safer, the firm has helped nine wrongly convicted people find justice and freedom.

The firm’s lawyers work hard at their craft, not because of minimum billable hour requirements – it has none. And client origination is neither tracked nor a key metric. (Did we mention the firm also has a leading animal law practice based in San Francisco that protects chimpanzees and many other of our nature-based friends? A premier antitrust practice based in Ann Arbor, Mich.?)

If it sounds like Nirvana, it may be. But make no mistake: This is a firm founded and focused on providing exquisite service to top-tier corporate as well as wrongful conviction clients. They bill hours, they

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

71

make money. It’s just that a fabric other than dollars and billable hours binds the firm.

here you are, it’s no longer white male, at least not if you want the best and brightest.”

“We show the power of the blank slate,” says Robert Riley, a leading trial lawyer who was chairman of Schiff Hardin, from which 22 partners decamped in 2016 to form Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila.

“The reason to start this firm was the opportunity to write on a blank sheet of paper,” says Safer, who learned the difficulty of changing a one-hundred year old firm as managing partner of Schiff Hardin and appreciated the advantage of starting anew. “These law firms are like battleships. It takes an enormous amount of effort to change them a few degrees.”

They’ve done it right from the outset. Interviews with 38 lawyers and legal professionals from the firm profoundly illustrate – from Zoom boxes coast to coast – the mutual respect and dignity across generations, job function, gender, ethnicity and everything in between. It sounds like a small thing, but it’s a dialogue that’s often talked about, but rarely delivered.

“There’s something you need to understand about the firm to begin to understand who we are,” says Riley.

“We didn’t start the way most law firms start, which is a couple of contemporaries start a firm, and then try to fill in the spots. We started with a multi-generational group of 20 people – with the 30-somethings, the 40-somethings, and the 50-somethings. I didn’t really fully understand the power of that when we began.”

As Holmes remembers, they were sitting around at a vineyard – which never hurts. And talking about what if. Which became why not?

Here’s the thing about most law firm origin stories. As Riley notes, they almost necessarily involve a cohort of similarly minded partners (often generationally and gender bonded) “rebelling” against something – pay structure, leadership, the old guard not getting out of the way.

That’s not the way Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila rolls.

“We asked what would it look like to create a law firm where people were happy every day,” says Matt Crowl, a former prosecutor and top trial lawyer.

Lawyers are trained deconstructionists, says Riley, who’s made his living using precisely that skill as a defense lawyer. For every assertion, a lawyer can tell you five problems with it. The Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila founders flipped the script, he explains, asking: “Okay. Where’s the promise? Where’s the opportunity? What can you do, and what can you accomplish that maybe you hadn’t anticipated you could accomplish before?”

Amplifying the creativity was the real-world Holmes: “I think law firms in general were struggling with the fact that, when you think about it, law firms started with all white men. And there were no women. So how you became a partner stems from the birth of the white male law firm and it just kind of grew. And 72

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

He became managing partner of Schiff in 2004, in large part because there was no diversity. “We had zero African-American partners at the time and something like 12 percent women,” he says. “And I said unless we can change this profile, you are depriving yourself of such rich talent pools that you will not be able to survive in the marketplace. I sincerely believe that. In addition, I just didn’t want to be in a law firm that was monolithic. It’s not a way of life.”

Sitting at the vineyard and throughout the weeks that followed, Holmes saw two lines destined to cross. A perfect storm. Millennial lawyers and Gen X lawyers were coming up and thinking differently and stuck within traditional law firm structures. “They want different things, and many of them are in the client base,” she says including maternity and paternity leave, how people are ascending and who’s in the succession plan.

Blank slates are nice. Second mortgages are harder.

After the retreat, partners went home and talked to families about the opportunity and what it would take.

They committed – many mentioning they’d follow Holmes anywhere – rolled up their sleeves and got to work. Lead partners assembled tables and the early makings of a law firm, preparing name badges for a possibly premature opening celebration.

The firm’s success has been remarkable, no matter your metric. Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila’s attorney corps is more than 60 percent inclusive. It has 80 attorneys in five offices throughout the country, with a trial corps boasting more than 200 trials, a fledgling transactional practice, some of the nation’s top litigators in white collar, and the entire range of defense work, from insurance and business disputes, as well as intellectual property. Its appellate practice also boasts a remarkable track record having won decisions in multiple federal appellate districts in the last five years. And then there are those chimpanzees.

Partner Joe Cancila spent his entire career at Schiff before co-founding the firm, developing a national reputation as a top class action defense litigator.

“I can’t,” he replied. He needed to focus on revenuegenerating strategy for the firm. “But let me just tell you a bit about the case,” the caller said. Safer said no, again, and the caller said, “Okay, got it.

You can’t do it, but there is a bond hearing in two days in downstate Illinois, Lawrenceville. Can you do that?” Of course they’d bring in a new lawyer just after that.

Patricia Holmes and Robert Riley. Photos provided by the firm.

He’s enjoyed watching how his practice as well as the product liability defense practice led by Riley and the white collar team guided by Safer and Holmes, have proven more synergistic with fewer walls, as he calls them.

“When you get along with a lot of your colleagues, it just really encourages collaborative work. It’s really amazingly striking how much you can work collaboratively when you’re rowing in the same direction and your objectives are the general interest of the client and the general interest of advancing the client’s interest and the firm’s interest and not your own interest and not desires to earn the maximum amount you can individually,” says Cancila.

The firm’s wrongful conviction and exoneration practice draws most of the headlines, and exemplifies the heart of this group of professionals. Many of the firm’s litigators are former prosecutors, which obviously means the firm offers unique skill sets in the white collar and internal investigations fields.

Having worked extensively with law enforcement throughout Chicago, however, it strengthens their voice in challenging improper police practices.

If Holmes is the heart of the firm, Safer may be its soul. A remarkably low-key powerful attorney, he works hard to deflect attention from himself and heap praise on others. And to hear him tell it, he basically fell into the exoneration practice. A longtime prosecutor, he left the U.S. Attorney’s Office as Chief of the Criminal Division, worked his way up at Schiff and had been elected managing partner.

That’s when the head of the Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions called in need of a lawyer for a special case.

The case was that of a mother whose son was murdered sleeping in his bed at 4:30 a.m. He was stabbed 17 or 18 times. His mother awoke and tried to stop the assailant as he ran from the house. Because a knife from the home had been used, Julie was convicted of killing her son. Thanks to a 20/20 episode, a serial killer on Death Row in Texas had confessed to the crime, providing matching details that exonerated Julie. She won her appeal on technicalities, and Safer headed south to Lawrenceville for her bond hearing.

(It’s about a three-hour drive East of St. Louis, with time for a 15-minute stop to see the white squirrels of Olney.)

Julie had been released on a $250K bond for trial, and Safer argued she should be released. The state’s attorney responded that the judge should not worry about the confessed killer on death row “because Texas will not honor a subpoena for an out of state death row inmate.” While a true statement, it was also a particularly reprehensible one, made worse by the second sentence from the prosecutor: “Second, we immunized him for the death penalty when we talked to him, so it’s not a statement against penal interest. So nobody will ever hear about the [Tommy Lynn] Sells confession.”

Safer turned to the judge, and said, “Your honor, I don’t hear the representative of the people of the state of Illinois to be telling you that he intends to try this woman for her life while concealing from the jury the fact that he took an 86-page confession from a serial murderer about this crime that he knows is corroborated by independent evidence. I don’t hear the representative of the people of the state of Illinois to be saying that. But if you hear him to be saying that, you ought to say ‘Not in my courtroom you don’t.’”

The judge granted Julie a $1M bond. Safer turned to the Northwestern team and said, “OK, I’m in.”

And he’s never looked back. Julie was acquitted. And Safer swore he’d never do it again. “The pressure of representing an innocent defendant in a murder case is unbearable.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

73

Northwestern called with a new case six months later. “Once you realize you can do it, you really don’t have much of a choice. You have to do it,” Safer says.

Like most lawyers, there’s a narrative for why Safer and the other members of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila do what they do. His is rooted in the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. when he was 10-years old and the modest reaction of his parents – who he felt were the greatest people who ever lived. They lived in New York City and it didn’t affect them much. “But I said, ‘Yeah, but what about the rest of the country which was treating Black people as sub-human?

During this horrendous injustice to Black people, what were you doing?’”

When he came to Chicago, he was sickened reading every day about a kid getting caught in the crossfire of a gang. So he became a prosecutor, and with Crowl prosecuted the Gangster Disciples.

“So you do what you can to try to right those wrongs.

As much as I love and admire my parents, when my kids ask me ‘What did you do when these gangs were killing these kids, our future, in largely Black and Hispanic communities, what did you do to stop that?’

I did want to have a better answer. It didn’t directly affect my community, but I had a broader definition of what my community was. I viewed those kids as my kids who were gunned down.”

He brings that full circle with the inequality he sees in most law firms. “I view the people who are not playing on a level field in most law firms, those are my brothers and sisters,” says Safer. “I feel it is a privilege to be able to build something where the playing ground is more level. Are we perfect? Not by a long shot. We have to get better at lots of things, including leveling the playing field, but it’s a privilege to be able to try that.”

Riley couldn’t help but think of the firm’s journey on a recent law firm management panel prompted by the pandemic. “Everybody was talking about the pandemic, and they all seemed to gravitate over the idea that, ‘You know? We think we’re in a change moment.’”

They were trying to figure out how to get their firms to accept this was a real change moment, and what they were going to change and not change, how to weigh what people thought with what metrics indicated.

And Riley sat, and listened, and remembered his change moment. “We started a new law firm five years ago. We’ve been in the change moment for a long time.” For Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, the question is not whether they can become diverse or improve 74

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left: Ronald Safer; Right: Joseph Cancila. Photos provided by the firm.

their numbers. They are diverse and have overcome the “pertinacious problem of law firms” that you can’t create diverse law firms from existing organizations.

They’re onto the next and more important problem.

“What does it mean to be a firm whose professional excellence is built on authentic diversity, equity and inclusion? How do we live up to that? Can we listen and learn from our diverse stakeholders at every level of the firm? How can we build this into our alignment with the goals of those we serve? That process will never end for us.”

The goal is to prove to themselves and their clients there are no limits when you embrace what’s possible. “We have to worry about whether we’re true to our principles, and whether our clients understand who we are, what we’re trying to accomplish, and how that demonstrates the professional excellence they seek concerning their most demanding legal problems,” says Riley. “That’s the measuring stick.

It’s always the measuring stick for us.

“I’ve learned over time that what people are afraid of is very powerful, and it can govern the way people behave if they let it, but what people aspire to is just as powerful if you can stay focused on it, if you believe in your ability to achieve it, and if you’re committed to getting over whatever bumps are in your way to get that done.

It’s just a happier way to spend your energy,” he says.

For Holmes, the biggest struggle is that the firm doesn’t have room for everyone who wants to come through the doors. “I am most proud of the fact that we are extremely diverse. We have excellent lawyers and great marquee clients, even international clients.

We’re not regional. We’re not local. We are a true national firm. I’m very proud of that.”

100

WE’RE PROUD TO PUBLISH THE 2020 LAWDRAGON GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL FINANCE.

This is our inaugural guide dedicated to the role of legal finance in law firms worldwide.

We bring together pioneers of litigation finance who’ve helped build this field for decades, alongside young stars bringing technological tools to better funding assessment and results.

Litigation finance offers lawyers and clients the ability to seek justice that would otherwise not be attainable, while offering a lifeline in portfolio funding to law firms. As influencers on the legal profession go, it’s impossible to overstate the role of litigation finance.

We began recognizing outstanding litigation funders five years ago, and included them in our first four guides to top legal consultants and advisors. As funds have professionalized and grown to be key strategic relationships in global litigation, we recognized it was time for deeper reporting on this critical arena. As with all our guides, we relied on journalistic reporting, lawyer input and vetting by clients and peers.

Headwinds buffeted the industry in the past 18 months, including the Muddy Waters inquiry on industry-leader Burford. Also of note are the acquisition of Vannin Capital by Fortress Investment and tie-up of IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway.

We’ve also included 10 Advisors to the Legal Finance Industry for a snapshot of the nascent field of brokers, attorneys and others amassing to guide lawyers through the legal finance field.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

75

100 NAME

COMPANY

Cindy Ahn

Longford Capital

Chicago

Pierre Amariglio

Tenor Capital Management

New York

Craig Arnott

Burford Capital

London

Christine Azar

Burford Capital

New York

Isabelle Berger-Steiner

Nivalion

Steinhausen/Zug, Switzerland

Jack Blackburn

Bluewhite Legal Capital

Purchase, N.Y.

Eric Blinderman

Therium Capital

New York

Christopher Bogart

Burford Capital

New York

Daniel Bush

Law Finance Group

Mill Valley, Calif.

Allison Chock

Omni Bridgeway/Bentham

Los Angeles

Adrian Chopin

Bench Walk Advisers

London

Jeffery Commission

Burford Capital

Washington, D.C.

Owen Cyrulnik

Curiam Capital

New York

Marla Decker

Lake Whillans

New York

Christopher DeLise

Delta Capital Partners

Chicago

Patrick Dempsey

Therium Capital

New York

David Desser

Juris Capital

Chicago

Earl Doppelt

Bluewhite Legal Capital

Purchase, N.Y.

Lee Drucker

Lake Whillans

New York

Joe Dunn

Fortress Investment Group

New York

Susan Dunn

Harbour Litigation Funding

London

76

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

JESSICA WOODHOUSE ON THE EQUITY PROJECT

BY ALISON PREECE

HERE AT LAWDRAGON, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT

gender parity in the law. It’s a fascinating, if frustrating, subject. We’re all too familiar with the facts: While law school graduates are half women, and have been for some time, female lawyers still make less than their male counterparts, are less likely to make partner and are sorely underrepresented in firm leadership roles.

Certain firms work to close the gap through mentorship programs, childcare options and an honest appraisal of their methods of assigning compensation, recognition and advancement. Dedicated diversity programs can help, but too often pay lip service without affecting real change.

Good news in the efforts toward parity is emerging from a somewhat unlikely source: Burford Capital, a leader in the world of legal finance.

Burford, which recently listed on the New York Stock Exchange – the first legal finance firm to do so – manages a $4B portfolio, and has worked with the vast majority of leading law firms and corporates in the U.S. and globally to fund litigation and arbitration matters.

By providing capital and sharing financial risk, Burford can accelerate law firm growth, help corporates manage assets and take the financial weight off pursuing litigation and arbitration matters. So perhaps it’s fitting that they are also making dedicated efforts towards gender parity in the law with their ground-breaking Equity Project.

We caught up with Jessica Woodhouse, a Vice President at Burford handling strategic partnerships and business development, about The Equity Project’s goals, approach, successes and challenges since it was launched in 2018.

Lawdragon: I’d love to hear more about your background, Jessica. How did you come to the world of litigation finance?

In 2018, Burford had started to develop a bigger business development operation and were looking to add a position and a function specifically focused on strategic partnerships or relationships with third parties. They found me.

Despite being a litigator once upon a time, I was not familiar with litigation finance. After all, it hardly existed back when I was practicing.

I wasn’t looking to make a career change, but Burford is a very compelling place. What they’re doing in terms of bringing capital to bear in the legal sector is just fascinating and really innovative. I was so impressed with every single person I met here that it became a relatively easy decision.

I will have been here two years come January.

LD: So The Equity Project was launching right around the time you joined the firm?

Jessica Woodhouse: I practiced law at Latham & Watkins as a litigator back in the early aughts, transitioned to an in-house job at MetLife and eventually made a switch to a career in business development.

JW: Exactly. It launched in the fall of 2018, a few months before my arrival, but I’ve come to know its origin story well.

The most recent company I worked for prior to Burford does corporate compliance outsourcing. My role there was business development, and specifically strategic partnerships.

Our leadership had noticed the very low proportion of inquiries that were coming to Burford that were cases led by women, whether they were arbitrations or litigations. Like most of us in the industry, our

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

77

100 management team is well aware that approximately half of law school graduates are women, and plenty of women make it to the mid-level, even senior associate level at law firms. But they’re far from being represented equally in the equity or even non-equity partnership level.

Burford began to think about what we could do, calling on our specific strengths to move the needle. [CoChief Operating Officer] Aviva Will really spearheaded the effort, and she worked closely with a number of

JW: Absolutely. The only factor that really separates Equity Project matters from the other matters that we finance are, in order to be eligible for Equity Project capital, the matter must have a woman lawyer as first chair; be woman-led; be chaired by a woman; give the origination credit to a woman; have a woman as the client relationship partner; or the firm must be woman-owned.

The process is the same whether or not The Equity Project is involved. Burford has its own team of law-

THE IDEA WAS TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE LACK OF GENDER DIVERSITY AND SPECIFICALLY TO THE PAY GAP. different individuals at Burford to develop the concept of a pool of capital specifically set aside and dedicated to back commercial matters led by women.

The idea was to bring attention to the lack of gender diversity and specifically to the pay gap. What litigation finance can do and what The Equity Project specifically can do for women is help them to originate matters. Women are less likely to inherit client relationships and therefore receive origination credit for the work they do. By originating a matter in the law firm context, a woman’s career is enhanced and she has a better chance at achieving pay equity. That’s the essence of the Project’s genesis and mission.

It has developed over time. One of the really pivotal elements that Burford put in place in the beginning was to recruit champions in the legal industry. These are senior women at major law firms and in-house, who bring their experience to bear, their networks to bear, their ideas. That has been phenomenal, and really made it possible for us to turn this from a good idea into an effective platform.

LD: That’s a brilliant approach. And you earmarked $50M for this project, correct? Is that a separate fund?

JW: It’s not a separate fund, no. It is more of an earmarked pool of our existing capital. When we invest in any matter, typically it’s a combination of capital from our own balance sheet, as well as from various funds that we manage.

LD: Can you talk a bit about Burford’s process to determine whether or not to fund a matter? And whether the criteria is the same when The Equity Project is involved?

78

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

yers and financial analysts who evaluate each matter that comes to us. First of all, we fund only commercial matters. We don’t do any sort of personal, individual or matrimonial type cases. It’s all commercial disputes between businesses.

The type of claim matters. We do a lot in the patent space, and in antitrust. International arbitrations are common, whether they are investor-state arbitration, also called treaty claims, or whether they’re commercial arbitrations between two entities.

Another factor is the size – we fund matters with damages in the mid-eight figures and up. The merits are also hugely important. That’s why we have such a robust team to assess matters, with deep experience practicing law. We have former patent litigators, former international arbitration attorneys, former commercial litigators and antitrust lawyers. With that expertise and experience, they’re able to evaluate the merits, which is a huge part of determining what we’ll invest in.

We also look at the counsel associated with the matter, and their track record in terms of successful litigation of the type of matter that we’re evaluating.

LD: So then, when an attorney who happens to be female brings a matter to Burford for consideration, do they need to mention The Equity Project to access that pool of capital? Or do cases sometimes come in and internally you notice a woman is leading it, so then you loop in the Project funds?

JW: It happens both ways. One of the big things The Equity Project is doing is raising awareness, creating more conversations. It is directly causing matters

100

to enter our pipeline, matters where the attorney is saying, “I heard about The Equity Project. Here’s a matter for your consideration.”

That’s happening more and more. What we’re looking to do is increase the number of matters in general that are coming to us that are led by women and to move the needle in terms of pay equity for women.

Whether or not a matter was specifically motivated

by The Equity Project, that doesn’t affect whether it qualifies as an Equity Project matter. We believe by furthering these conversations within the legal ecosystem, there will be more matters coming to us led by women.

LD: What other ways are you raising awareness here?

Does it involve working with that braintrust of female leadership you mentioned earlier?

JW: Absolutely. We’ve undertaken a number of different initiatives. First of all, we put out a fair amount of content, in the form of articles in our own publications, blog posts, and we commissioned a significant research study that was published in May 2020. Since Covid, we have done several webcasts, and whenever possible, we involve attorneys from law firms, in-house attorneys and other experts in the field of diversity and inclusion in our webcasts.

We’ve also had several in-person events, including a breakfast panel in London that touched on the challenge of building your own book of business as a woman.

In New York, we put on a half-day workshop that took that concept and really fleshed it out into a substantive program on how to effectively become a business development professional as a law firm attorney. It’s not something that attorneys, men or women, receive much training in, and we want to change that.

LD: Have you been doing any digital events in the age of Covid?

JW: Yes we have. The half-day event in New York took place in January 2020. It feels like a lifetime ago.

The plan was to roll it out, and then to do more of those in-person, business development, bootcampstyle events.

With Covid, we’ve pivoted to webcasts for the time being. We had a great one back in late May on the research that we put out in the spring of 2020 on what in-house legal departments are doing in terms of enforcing diversity within the law firms they hire.

We’ve done a couple of other really interesting webcasts, including one with McKinsey, who had some really interesting data and research on women in senior positions in business, generally, not just the law.

LD: There’s no beating in-person events, but it seems to me that one upside of going virtual is that some groups are getting larger audiences than they otherwise would have. Are you finding that?

JW: I think that’s definitely true. In some ways, at least in this context, it can level a playing field, particularly in terms of geography. In the past, we might have assumed the optimal way of putting on a given event would be in person, but that means it’s going to be limited to people within a certain distance.

Since nothing has been happening in person, we’ve been channeling all of our engagements to digital, which means that every event has the ability to pull people from everywhere. I do think that has led to greater engagement and participation in the events that we’ve had.

That program involved about 35 or so rising legal stars. Not the most senior partners, but those who are still in the process of building their books of business at law firms.

LD: The Equity Project has been in play for two years now. Obviously litigation and arbitrations can take a long time to conclude, but can you point to any success stories here? In terms of whether you’re seeing more women leading the projects that are coming in, and also whether any of the funded matters have reached successful conclusion?

They came in and we had a fantastic consultant named Silvia Coulter present a 90-minute program on business development for lawyers. We also had a panel of our champions speaking about their career experience in terms of becoming rainmakers.

There was a lot of Q&A from the group. It was really effective, a great event.

JW: I don’t believe any of the matters backed by the Equity Project have concluded yet. So, from an investment perspective, I can’t speak to that. We released an update in our 2019 year-end results and as of that time, we had committed about half of the $50M pool. Since the beginning of 2020, that has gone up.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

79

100

WHAT LITIGATION FINANCE CAN DO AND WHAT THE EQUITY PROJECT SPECIFICALLY CAN DO FOR WOMEN IS HELP THEM TO ORIGINATE MATTERS. WOMEN ARE LESS LIKELY TO INHERIT CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS AND THEREFORE RECEIVE ORIGINATION CREDIT FOR THE WORK THEY DO. We’ll be releasing new numbers shortly, as of the halfyear mark. In terms of data as to inquiries, we don’t have data yet showing a change. But I’m pleased with how far we’ve gotten in terms of what we’ve committed and in the variety of the matters that we’re funding.

None of them are public in the sense that I can speak about them with any specificity, but there are commercial arbitrations, patent matters and general commercial litigation. To your earlier question, many of them specifically and explicitly have come through Equity Project outreach.

LD: What happens when the $50M is all accounted for?

JW: We hope that’s soon. We will certainly increase it, once that $50M is committed. It’s a relatively small number by Burford standards, given Burford’s size and the amount of capital that we commit in a given year, which last year was more than $1.5B. It’s modest, which tells you something about just how far there is to go, in terms of achieving any kind of equity. We will certainly look to increase it once it’s fully committed.

LD: I love that. This is such a big, bold project with incredible potential. What has the response been from the legal community?

JW: There’s a couple of things I could point to that are very heartening, anecdotally. From a commercial perspective, we’ve had Equity Project events that have led directly to new inquiries in our pipeline, led by women, some of which we funded. That’s been fantastic.

We’ve had both men and women at law firms seek us out to speak about the Equity Project, because most law firms realize that they have a problem with a lack of diversity in leadership and in the equity partner

80

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ranks, and most want to do better. This provides a tangible way to make progress.

We’ve gotten a lot of really great feedback from leadership within law firms, in terms of using this as a way to inspire women. To encourage them to go for that career-making large case, knowing Burford may be able to have your back in taking the risk.

I’ve received a lot of great feedback in that respect.

LD: I hope the answer to this is no, but – have you gotten any pushback?

JW: I haven’t gotten what I would call pushback exactly, but we do have our hurdles. The Equity Project and the message of taking concrete action to finally close the gender pay and leadership gaps, naturally it’s a conversation to have with women. But what’s less appreciated is it’s also a very important conversation to have with men, too. With everyone.

There have been instances, sort of in a knee jerk way, that men think it’s not relevant for them and therefore they don’t give it as much attention as I personally think they should.

In those instances, I began making an effort to explicitly engage men in the conversation. I’m delighted to report that it’s been really well received. These men initially had felt a little uncomfortable, thinking that they weren’t supposed to be part of it. Once they understood they were welcome, and in fact their participation is crucial to making the whole thing work, they started to get engaged in a really productive way.

Overall this effort has been really well-received by firms and in-house teams. It’s an innovative approach to a particularly sticky problem, and we’re thrilled to be helping nudge the needle in the right direction.

100

PATRICK DEMPSEY

BY ALISON PREECE

PATRICK DEMPSEY IS THE CHIEF INVESTMENT

Officer for Therium’s U.S. operations, heading up the investment team based in New York. Therium is a top-rated, global third-party litigation funder with over $1B under management.

A litigator by background, Dempsey was drawn to the world of litigation finance because he saw the revolutionary potential for the market. A member of the 2020 Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Legal Finance, Dempsey joined Therium in 2016.

Lawdragon: Where does Therium focus, both geographically and in terms of practice areas?

Patrick Dempsey: Therium has a broad mandate and can fund disputes in most jurisdictions of the world. At its core, we focus on commercial disputes.

Beyond general commercial claims, we also fund banking and financial markets cases; securities and shareholder disputes; international commercial arbitration; investment treaty arbitration; antitrust; IP disputes, including patent and trade secret litigation; insolvency; insurance disputes; tax litigation; fraud litigation; shipping/trade disputes; and the enforcement of judgments and awards.

LD: Litigation funding has seen rapid growth in recent years, but it was met with some skepticism early on from certain people. How did you first decide to join the field?

PD: I’ve always struggled with the efficiency of the “billable hour model” at most law firms and saw funding as a catalyst to change the way the legal market works – or, if not, to at least arbitrage the disconnect between clients looking for results-based engagements and firms structured around the billable hour.

When the Therium opportunity presented itself, I jumped at it. Plus, it was a chance to reunite with my former colleague and friend, Therium’s U.S. CEO Eric Blinderman, to launch Therium’s footprint in the U.S. LD: Your firm has emerged as a market leader in the litigation funding space. From your vantage point, what sort of trends are you seeing in the industry at the moment?

PD: Traditionally, the recipients of our funding are usually smaller companies that have found themselves wronged in some way by a much larger company and do not have the ability or resources to bring the claim forward – perhaps because they have been crippled financially, forced into dire straits, or have had necessary

PHOTO BY: CEOPORTRAIT

TRADITIONALLY, THE RECIPIENTS OF OUR FUNDING ARE USUALLY SMALLER COMPANIES THAT HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES WRONGED IN SOME WAY BY A MUCH LARGER COMPANY AND DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY OR RESOURCES TO BRING THE CLAIM FORWARD.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

81

100 NAME

COMPANY

Jay Eisenhofer

Bench Walk Advisers

New York

Roni Elias

TownCenter Partners

McLean, Va.

Timothy Farrell

Longford Capital

Chicago

William Farrell

Longford Capital

Chicago

Dai Wai Chin Feman

Parabellum Capital

New York

James Foster

Litigation Capital Management

London

Steven Friel

Woodsford Litigation Funding

London

David Gallagher

D.E. Shaw

New York

John Garda

Longford Capital

Dallas

Ian Garrard

Innsworth

London

Julia Gewolb

Validity Finance

New York

Adam Gill

GLS Capital

Chicago

Stuart Grant

Bench Walk Advisers

Wilmington, Del.

Alain Grec

Profile Investment

Paris

Jay Greenberg

LexShares

Boston

Christian Haigh

Legalist

San Francisco

Rosemary Ioannou

Vannin/Fortress Investment

London

Michael Israel

IVO Capital Partners

Paris

Mark Jacobs

Arrowhead Capital

New York

Sarah Johnson

D.E. Shaw

New York

Aaron Katz

Parabellum Capital

New York

82

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

I’VE ALWAYS STRUGGLED WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF THE “BILLABLE HOUR MODEL” AT MOST LAW FIRMS AND SAW FUNDING AS A CATALYST TO CHANGE THE WAY THE LEGAL MARKET WORKS – OR, IF NOT, TO AT LEAST ARBITRAGE THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN CLIENTS LOOKING FOR RESULTS-BASED ENGAGEMENTS AND FIRMS STRUCTURED AROUND THE BILLABLE HOUR. payments withheld. Our funding levels that playing field for these claim holders against better-resourced adversaries. Increasingly, though, the companies that are coming to us have the balance sheet to fund the dispute but are instead looking to free up cash to be used for core aspects of their businesses, separate and apart from the litigation or arbitration. The law firms we work with range from small litigation boutiques who are very comfortable taking risk but need more regular cash flow all the way to big international law firms that are not set up to take risk and are looking simply to be paid by the billable hour.

The coronavirus pandemic has also kept us busier than we were before the pandemic. The types of cases haven’t really changed all that much, although we have seen an uptick in insolvency, insurance and intellectual property claims. What has changed are the number of firms and parties that are inquiring about funding – more and more companies are faced with uncertain balance sheets and revenues and are increasingly turning to us to help them unlock the value of their litigation assets or otherwise preserve cash on hand.

And we are seeing more opportunities with firms that are traditionally focused on defense-side work that are exploring ways to develop their plaintiff-side practices as a way to generate more revenue.

LD: You began your career as a lawyer, correct?

PD: Yes, before joining Therium, I was a litigator in the New York office of Hogan Lovells, where my practice focused largely on consumer finance, lender liability, and other complex financial services litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts. I started my legal career with Proskauer, where I concentrated on trademark/false advertising matters, international arbitration, sports litigation and complex commercial

disputes. At both firms, I regularly took cases through to trial or arbitral hearings. I have extensive experience in contract disputes, business torts, trademark and patent disputes, trade secret theft and regulatory investigations in a broad range of industries as diverse as financial services, hedge funds and private equity, consumer products, food and beverage, sports and entertainment, real estate, biotechnology, health care, insurance, telecommunications and technology. All of this experience is very helpful to my current position.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with a litigation funding firm such as yours?

PD: When we are looking at investments, we typically focus on five core areas: First is the likelihood of success on the merits – are the claim holders going to win? Next, the quantum of damages – how much will they win? Third is collection risk – can the other party pay the judgment or award? Fourth is the timeframe of the investment – how long will it take from initial investment to recovery? And finally, the judgment and calibre of the lawyers handling the case. The best advice I can give is to be honest about your claim – cases are rarely the “best case I’ve ever seen” and are going to have drawbacks or unhelpful facts. Don’t hide those when presenting the claim but rather deal with them upfront so that we don’t uncover them later during our diligence.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re not working?

PD: Most of my time outside of the office is spent with my wife and three kids in Brooklyn, New York.

I’m also a big sports fan, particularly American football and basketball and, increasingly, motorsports.

When my kids let me, I’m also an avid consumer and armchair critic of high- and low-brow television.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

83

100 NAME

COMPANY

Jim Kearney

Lake Whillans

New York

David Kerstein

Validity Finance

New York

Mark King

Harbour Litigation Funding

London

Thomas Kohlmeier

Nivalion

Munich

Jules Kroll

Bluewhite Legal Capital

Purchase, N.Y.

Christoph Kuzaj

Therium Capital

Duesseldorf

John Lazar

Burford Capital

New York

Andy Lundberg

Burford Capital

New York

Jamison Lynch

GLS Capital

Chicago

Dana MacGrath

Omni Bridgeway/Bentham

New York

Ellora MacPherson

Harbour Litigation Funding

London

William Marra

Validity Finance

New York

Jeremy Marshall

Omni Bridgeway/Bentham

London

Timothy Mayer

Therium Capital

London

Kevin McCaffrey

Law Finance Group

New York

Iain McKenny

Profile Investment

Paris

Joshua Meltzer

Woodsford Litigation Funding

Wales, Pa.

Yasmin Mohammad

Vannin/Fortress Investment

Paris

Jonathan Molot

Burford Capital

Washington, D.C.

Wynne Morriss

Arrowhead Capital

New York

Hassan Murphy

TRGP Capital

New York

84

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

DAVID KERSTEIN

BY ALISON PREECE

DAVID KERSTEIN WAS A LITIGATOR AT GIBSON

Dunn nine years ago when he first learned about litigation financing, an industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years.

His work at Gibson was a mix of complex commercial cases, including securities, bankruptcy and arbitration matters. His desire to do something more entreprenuerial had him considering a different path when he learned about litigation funding from a matter he was working. He saw the potential in the nascent industry and left the gold-standard litigation firm to join Bentham IMF (now Omni Bridgeway).

Kerstein has since struck out on his own and helped found Validity Finance, which focuses on funding business-to-business, commercial litigation in the U.S., as well as international arbitrations. They provide capital to individual commercial plaintiffs and to commercial law firms. As Chief Risk Officer and Senior Investment Manager, Kerstein works with companies and firms on funding models for cases, while applying his litigation expertise to advise on case strategy.

Lawdragon: How has the pandemic impacted your business? Are you seeing more or less of certain types of cases?

David Kerstein: We are seeing more opportunities that are directly or indirectly related to the current economic environment coming from Covid, including insurance recovery matters, breaches of contract and failure to perform-type disputes. As the crisis continues, we have seen a general increase in the need for capital and our services across industries and law firms. With liquidity challenges, there has been an uptick in outreach from firms of all sizes, including large firms that were previously not willing or ready to share risk or consider using funding.

We are also hearing from large corporations that theoretically could afford to fund their own litigation, but would rather use their own capital to make their widgets or perform their core competency.

These corporations are beginning to recognize that litigation finance is another tool that they can use to manage and mitigate litigation risk and finance a large project, like a significant litigation.

LD: Interesting. Are you offering any different products or services in these times?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

DK: In the wake of Covid-19, we have been approached to partner with law firms to create jumbosized portfolios. These are designed on a bespoke basis and represent an innovative way to approach financing a firm’s growth, or to smooth out cash flow and mitigate risk. Portfolios of this size helps firms pool risk for everything from receivables to hiring to supporting the traditional set of contingency cases. As law firms compete for key clients, these portfolios also offer a way for them to offer discounts far beyond what they can do with traditional mark-downs and AFAs [alternative fee arrangements]. We’ve been excited to develop these bespoke products and to collaborate with firms to solve a real need in the industry.

LD: How did you get into litigation financing in the first place? Did you practice as a lawyer originally, or what’s your education and career background?

DK: I’ve been incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to study at and then work at a series of elite institutions. Starting with the University of Pennsylvania, where I got a degree in diplomatic history, and then following with Penn Law School, I received an excellent undergrad and law school education, and was able to build a network of close contacts with whom I collaborate to this day.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

85

100

I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMBINATION OF DEEP LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, ALONG WITH PATIENCE AND CREATIVITY, IN ORDER TO FIND AND ULTIMATELY INVEST IN THE RIGHT TRANSACTIONS. Following law school, I spent the bulk of my legal career at Gibson Dunn, which has one of the top, if not the top, litigation groups in the country. I was able to hone my legal and litigation skills there and work and establish relationships with some of the most elite litigators in the country. The educational and premier law firm foundation and network that I built served me well when I chose to change career paths and enter the litigation finance world back in 2014.

I learned about the litigation funding world while I was practicing at Gibson Dunn. I was working on the well-known Chevron Ecuador litigation in 2011, and I was working late one night (as usual), and in a miserable mood, when I discovered that the plaintiffs in that litigation were using something I had never heard of until that moment – litigation funding. The litigation finance industry, still relatively new now, was really just getting started in the United States then.

I had been thinking about a new career path, and suddenly, the proverbial cartoon lightbulb went off over my head and I could see the path ahead of me.

The passion that sparked me that one terrible night led me to a meeting with Ralph Sutton, then the Chief Investment Officer at Bentham, and later to join Ralph there, where I worked for four years as an investment manager. Two years ago, I joined Ralph again when we founded Validity. We have since had the opportunity to fund and work with top notch litigation boutiques and many AmLaw 100 firms either on an individual case or portfolio funding basis.

LD: Having gone from a litigator to a litigation financier, how would you describe your work style now?

And, what characteristics does it take to thrive in this burgeoning area?

DK: I would describe my style or philosophy as collaborative and open minded. I believe that you have to have a combination of deep legal knowledge and experience, along with patience and creativity, in order to find and ultimately invest in the right transactions.

86

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

In addition, I pride myself, as does our whole company, on being client-focused and on establishing fair, trusting and long-term relationships with clients. In short, if you are our client, we want you to be happy you worked with us, to come back to work with us again, and to pass word of your experience to others.

LD: How did you decide to start your own litigation funding firm?

DK: I was fortunate to be able to cut my teeth at one of the pioneers in litigation finance. Even though I loved it there, when I had the opportunity to join Ralph, as well as Julia Gewolb and Laina Hammond to found our own company that was focused on client service and trust, it was kind of a no brainer. When you see a need in the market, and an opportunity to take an ownership and leadership role in a startuptype company with an amazing team, a great mission and a significant amount of committed capital, it is an easy decision to make.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office?

DK: I am an avid live music fan and a proud NYC music freak, as well as a long-suffering Mets, Jets, Islanders and Knicks fan. I like to live by the mottos, “Can’t you live while you’re young,” and “Please me have no regrets,” because you won’t find moments in a box. As a life-long New Yorker I love attending any event where there is a lot of energy, hanging out with my two “young men” who are now 15 and 12, and devoting time to two charity organizations, the Freaks Action Network and Riley’s Way Foundation.

In the recent Covid era, where it can seem like a week is a month and an hour a day, although its currently not feasible to attend large events, it’s still important to stay in touch with friends, colleagues and clients. So, like many others, I’ve substituted in virtual cocktails, meals, and concerts on Zoom, House Party and other virtual platforms.

100

AARON KATZ

BY JAMES LANGFORD

DURING HIS OFF HOURS AS AN ASSISTANT

U.S. attorney in New York in the late 1990s, Aaron Katz fixated on certain “why can’t you?” questions that interlaced law and finance. In particular, he asked himself why investors couldn’t buy interests in lawsuits the way investors could purchase other assets such as stocks and bonds. This restlessness was perhaps genetic. Katz grew up as the third generation of lawyers in his family who left law practice for finance. Unwilling to be deterred by early criticisms of litigation finance, Katz became one of the pioneers in the field. Together with Howard Shams, he co-founded the first U.S. commercial litigation funding business at Credit Suisse, which spun off in 2012 as Parabellum Capital. Katz now spends both his on- and off-duty hours examining ways to advance the business of law through finance principles as Parabellum’s Chief Investment Officer.

Lawdragon: Can you tell us about Parabellum?

Aaron Katz: Parabellum partners with law firms, businesses and individuals to share risk in and realize value through their commercial litigation claims.

We take on a portion of the investment needed to pursue these claims to reduce the risk exposure of the claimants and/or their counsel. These parameters allow for ample customization and creativity. Each deal we do is fully customized to the parties and cases involved. And, as a non-recourse investment, our return only comes from litigation proceeds – if there is no recovery, we take nothing.

We run on a lean and agile operational model. Our investment committee, located in New York, meets as needed to review transactions and allows us complete autonomy over the deals we do. We are highly selective with our deals and routinely pass on cases that our competitors end up funding. Yet we close a high volume of transactions, due to our creative structuring, strong relationships and ability to move quickly.

LD: What are some new products or services Parabellum is working on?

AK: Most of our effort is currently directed to growing our existing business, which is quite considerable. But with regard to new products, commercial litigation funding so far has focused on the claimant side. Parabellum has transacted almost entirely with

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

claimants (plaintiffs) but we have done work with defendants, as well. On the defense side, we share risk with counsel through jointly established success metrics that would determine whether we take a loss or are paid a premium. This is one of several areas of new initiative for us. We’re excited about the potential here, it’s an area we intend to put some of our new-product efforts into in the coming year and beyond. We’re also doing some interesting work with insurance balance sheets to develop insurance-type products for our market.

LD: Having participated in the U.S. commercial litigation finance industry since its inception, what are some of the most important lessons you’ve learned?

AK: Candidly, the best education you get as an investor is from the inevitable mistakes you make along the way. In fact, some of our most sophisticated and large-stake investors have conveyed that they prefer managers who have an appropriate amount of “scar tissue.” As you might expect, we indeed have some, and our experience has made us obsessive about alignment of interests and growing real partnerships with law firms and counterparties in our business. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2020/10/11/ legal-consultant-limelight-aaron-katz.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

87

100 NAME

COMPANY

Marius Nasta

Redress Solutions

London

Jack Neumark

Fortress Investment Group

New York

Michael Nicolas

Longford Capital

Chicago

Garrett Ordower

Lake Whillans

New York

Sidney Oury

IVO Capital Partners

Paris

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

Michael Rozen

TRGP Capital

New York

Aaron Rubinstein

Bluewhite Legal Capital

Purchase, N.Y.

Andrew Saker

Omni Bridgeway

Perth, Australia

Howard Shams

Parabellum Capital

New York

Eva Shang

Legalist

San Francisco

Emily Slater

Burford Capital

New York

Mick Smith

Calunius Capital

London

Curtis Smolar

Legalist

San Francisco

David Spiegel

GLS Capital

Chicago

Christian Stuerwald

Calunius Capital

London

Ralph Sutton

Validity Finance

New York

88

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

MARK KING

BY JOHN RYAN

FOR MARK KING, EXCELLING AT LITIGATION

funding is rooted in enjoying the best of both worlds – working at an in-house position while drawing on his experience in private practice. The Senior Director of Litigation Funding at Harbour Litigation previously worked at Clyde & Co. in Dubai and Mayer Brown’s London office. King says his firm can help “level the playing field” for claimants in need of resources while staying at the forefront of an innovative wing of the legal industry.

“We can potentially fund any dispute, anywhere in the world where funding is permitted, as long as it meets our investment criteria,” King says. “We are increasingly being asked to look at portfolios of claims, financial facilities for law firms and monetizing awards, amongst other emerging products.”

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of litigation funding services you provide?

Mark King: We fund commercial litigation and arbitration across a wide range of practice areas. We do not fund personal injury, nor divorce claims. We have significant experience with the following types of claims: class actions, including shareholders’ actions; environmental disasters and product liability; competition law; breach of contract; insolvency and fraud-related; torts; international arbitration, including commercial arbitration; breach of statute; IP and patent; and trust claims.

We do not apply hard rules to what we do. We fund a wide range of disputes with damages ranging from £10M to £1B and more. We are interested in and can fund a variety of different models.

As a lawyer who had only specialized in litigation in my career, in-house legal positions that recruited solely for this area were few and far between. I saw working at Harbour as a rare opportunity to use my litigation and arbitration expertise outside the boundaries of private practice.

LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying?

MK: Prior to joining Harbour in 2015, I had been working as a solicitor in private practice. At that time, litigation funding was still relatively nascent amongst firms and claimants, especially corporates.

MK: It offers me a unique balance of working inhouse and still being in private practice. While I am primarily an asset manager for an investment fund, as the only asset we invest in are claims, it means I need to draw upon my litigation and arbitration expertise in analyzing appropriate assets (claims) for investment, monitoring their performance and returns and continually analyzing their risks through to conclusion or realization.

My interest first started when I attended a seminar on third party funding in or around 2014. I had not come across the concept before but was interested by the prospect of being able to support claimants as a trusted partner in helping them to win their claims, obtain access to justice and/or reduce their financial risk of pursuing claims.

One of the benefits of working as a litigation funder is that you continually get exposure to a broad range of disputes in various jurisdictions. However, I find civil frauds and enforcements very interesting largely

LD: How did you first become interested in this type of work?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

My role also allows me to see first-hand the impact of the commercial and legal decisions I make and how they affect our business.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

89

100 because they often involve tracing the proceeds of fraud through complex webs designed to hide assets which have to be unpicked. The surrounding stories of the frauds usually always make interesting reading!

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing?

MK: As a result of Covid-19 we expect an increase in fraud and insolvency cases, a greater number of requests to provide funding to law firms and a growth in the number of corporates looking to use litigation funding. We expect sectors that are more adversely impacted by the economic downturn, such as retail, leisure and oil and gas to be more likely to choose litigation funding as a way of managing their costs and risk in the claims they need to pursue.

LD: Are you introducing any new products or services?

MK: The type of products our clients are seeking from us are evolving. We are increasingly being asked to look at portfolios of claims, financial facilities for law firms, monetizing awards and portfolio funding.

The key thing with introducing new product areas is to make them, one, easy to understand, and two, relevant and tailored to each client. Most clients have limited experience of using litigation funding, so need to be guided through the process of getting a case funded. This is even more important with new product areas, where clients may hear of a particular new product and be focused on accessing this product, when actually a different product may better suit their needs – for example, we often are approached about a facility when portfolio funding might better serve the client’s goals.

This is why product understanding and experience are essential to making your clients have the best solution for them. The goal is to deliver a product that aligns their risk mitigation and return to their risk appetite and situation. My prediction is that we will continue to see an expansion in the product range offered by funders to respond to client needs.

I do expect to see more corporates seek funding products as the pressure to reduce costs heightens.

LD: Can you tell us please about your career path?

MK: I graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, which is probably not the usual degree for commercial lawyers or asset managers. During the final year of my degree, I was personally involved in an insurance coverage dispute when I dropped a drink over my laptop while finalizing my dissertation. I sued the insurer, but I could not afford legal representation as a student, so I represented myself in the proceedings

90

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

and at trial. The insurer sent their lawyers to the court and I attended with my father. The judge upheld my claim and I was awarded the damages I claimed. It was this experience that started my interest in following a career as a lawyer and particularly in litigation, and I then focused on converting into pursuing an academic path to train as a lawyer.

While less so than now, competition for training contracts as a solicitor was still very high and vacancies with the leading law firms in London were strongly sought after. I didn’t have straight As in my education and had to find other ways to stand out to law firms, given most applicants had impeccable grades.

I applied to over fifty law firms over the time I was at law school in an attempt to get a training contract.

While at law school, I therefore sought to get as much practical legal experience as I possibly could, giving legal advice in prisons to prisoners on rehabilitation programs and working in a local citizens advice bureau giving pro bono legal advice to disadvantaged members of the community. It was this latter experience where I ended up working closely with a partner of Clyde & Co, a leading international law firm with a strong disputes practice. After working with them for some months, I then applied to the firm and was offered a two-week work experience placement which culminated into an offer to do my training contract with them.

Working at Clyde & Co gave me fantastic exposure to working on complex and high value disputes in England and also internationally, where I spent over three years working in the firm’s Middle East office.

In 2012, I returned to the UK to join Mayer Brown, continuing my career in litigation and international arbitration with a focus on construction and engineering disputes before joining Harbour in 2015.

LD: Did your religious studies degree end up being relevant to a law career?

MK: While my undergraduate degree in religious studies was not focused on law, it did focus heavily on understanding facts and issues and making cogent arguments in support of a particular idea.

These are fundamental skills that litigators frequently rely upon and also working in litigation funding where I am required to present arguments to our investment committee on why a particular case should be funded and in assessing the ongoing performance of cases we fund. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2020/11/05/legal-consultantlimelight-mark-king.

100

ANDREW SAKER

BY JOHN RYAN

AS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO OF OMNI

Bridgeway, a global heavyweight in the world of dispute resolution financing, Andrew Saker is driving innovation and working daily to achieve favorable outcomes for the company’s funded claimants and stakeholders. With a background in insolvency and restructuring, and work experience in Australia, North and South America and Asia, Saker was a logical selection in 2015 to steward the industry-leading company’s global growth. Now based in Perth, Saker received his Bachelor of Commerce in Accounting & Finance from the University of Western Australia.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide and to whom?

Andrew Saker: Omni Bridgeway Limited provides dispute resolution finance, from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. We work with individual claimants, law firms, corporations, sovereigns and multilateral institutions to help them manage legal risks and resolve disputes fairly and expediently. We pioneered modern-day dispute resolution finance beginning in 1986, and were the world’s first publicly listed litigation funder, listing on the ASX in 2001. We now have 18 offices across Australia, Asia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the U.S., and manage a global investment portfolio valued in the billions. Our highly experienced team members are specialists in law, finance, economics, business intelligence and asset tracing and help deliver outcomes to funded claimants that they could not achieve alone. We are one of the most respected brands in the industry and we are passionate about what we do.

LD: What were the steps in your career that brought you to work at Omni Bridgeway?

AS: Prior to joining Omni Bridgeway, I was an Official Liquidator of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. I began my career in 1988 at Ferrier Hodgson (now KPMG), a leading provider of corporate recovery, insolvency management and restructuring services throughout Australia and Asia. In 1998 I was appointed to Ferrier Hodgson’s partnership and subsequently established the firm’s Indonesian practice, based in Jakarta. During my 26-year career at Ferrier Hodgson, I was involved in over 500 corporate insolvencies and restructurings, gaining extensive experience on

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

corporate assignments in Australia, Asia, North and South America, with particular expertise in corporate advice and business planning; reconstruction and turnaround services; insolvency management; litigation management; fraud examination and forensic accounting.

LD: What does it take to succeed in litigation finance?

AS: There are significant barriers to entry to the third-party dispute finance industry. To thrive and be a leader in dispute resolution finance requires numerous competitive advantages. Our business is differentiated in several ways. First, we have signifi cant capital to fi nance large single disputes and portfolios, from inception through trial, appeal, enforcement and recovery. This is essential to being a viable competitor in today’s funding arena. We also bring value to each investment by way of strategic case insights and assistance with project execution. This helps maximize returns for funded parties.

The exceptional people at Omni Bridgeway are also a crucial differentiator. Our multi-disciplinary global team includes experienced in-house corporate counsel, seasoned litigators and recovery specialists from

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

91

100 premier international law firms, barristers, arbitrators, business leaders, directors, economists, financial experts, business intelligence and asset tracing professionals, educated at the world’s leading institutions. They know the optimal jurisdiction in which to conduct a claim, can recommend the best legal representatives for the type of dispute and parties involved, help quantify damages, and more. Our global team includes multi-lingual specialists who cover over 25 languages, are ‘on-the-ground’ and have local knowledge and cultural awareness. Our investment managers are supported by a global team of best-of-class professionals in each of the disciplines required to run our business.

Our Investment Committees, responsible for selecting the cases we invest in, comprise our most senior specialists and include former judges, founders of the dispute finance industry and highly experienced legal practitioners. 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. Through our extensive global network of senior contacts and trusting relationships with the world’s leading legal and other advisers, we can open the doors that lead to resolution.

Of further significance is our global footprint. Today’s disputes are often international in nature. We have 18 offices in 10 countries with teams permanently deployed throughout the globe. Innovation is also crucial. We are the founder of the modern-day dispute resolution finance industry and continue to develop new products, business processes and methodologies.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with a dispute resolution finance firm?

AS: Omni Bridgeway tailors bespoke financing solutions for clients. The best approach is to talk to one of our talented investment managers to explore financing options best suited to your needs.

LD: You mention the importance of innovation. Can you expound on the ways you’ve been able to creatively assist your clients?

AS: As the founder of the modern-day dispute resolution finance industry, we have always innovated and invented. From initially trading distressed debt in the mid-1980s, moving to distressed asset recovery and restructuring in 1990 to pioneering third-party 92

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

finance for insolvencies in the late 1990s, we have continued to develop finance solutions to meet market demand. We now finance group claims such as class actions, and offer innovative complementary, in-house book-building capabilities to support large group actions. This utilizes our proprietary software and know-how. We also provide finance for arbitration, law firm portfolios, commercial disputes and post-judgment enforcement and recovery across industry sectors and jurisdictions. Through our dedicated Distressed Asset Recovery Program - a joint venture with the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation – we finance and manage the recovery for lenders of non-performing loans in developing countries. From our origins of funding access to justice for the impecunious, we have grown into a financial services ally for solvent parties, including large organizations, who seek assistance with capital and risk management strategies.

LD: What sorts of changes have you focused on as CEO of your firm?

AS: Since joining Omni Bridgeway in 2015, I’ve led a five-year transformational strategy involving expanding the company’s geographic footprint, diversifying its product and service offering and migrating its capital management approach to become a fund manager investing via fund structures. The successful merger of our legacy business IMF Bentham with European funder Omni Bridgeway in late 2019 completed our strategic expansion into EMEA to form the largest dispute funding team in the world.

We now come together globally under the name Omni Bridgeway and to share a mission to develop a formidable global organization. Today, we have exceeded the goals we set in our 2015-20 five-year plan and are already implementing our new business strategy to 2025.

LD: How else would you say Omni Bridgeway is unique or distinguishes itself in the industry?

AS: Omni Bridgeway is the global leader in financing and managing legal risks. with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems. We are the world’s largest dispute finance team, offering end-to-end funding and management of disputes, and international enforcement of judgments and awards. Since 1986 we have built a proud record of financing disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/06/04/legal-consultant-limelightandrew-saker.

100

ANDY LUNDBERG

BY ALISON PREECE

THOUGH YOU WOULDN’T KNOW IT FROM HIS

self-deprecating humor and humble attitude, Andy Lundberg has always been two steps ahead. Intellectually talented and ever-curious, after collecting his bachelor’s in Philosophy from Stanford, Lundberg graduated with honors from Harvard Law School before landing a clerking position with the Hon. George E. MacKinnon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

With credentials like that, Lundberg was quickly scooped up by the international legal behemoth Latham & Watkins (by today’s standards, then a veritable boutique of “only” 200 lawyers), where he spent three-and-a-half decades handling complex commercial litigation cases with a speciality in the insurance sector. He rose through the ranks at Latham, serving as Chair of its Los Angeles Litigation Department and, ultimately, as Global Chair of the firm’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Practice. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that after an illustrious career at one of the most profitable law firms in the world, Lundberg retired from law for about 37 seconds, only to start anew as a managing director of the legal finance powerhouse Burford Capital.

Lawdragon: What drew you to litigation finance?

Andy Lundberg: As with my prior career as a Big Law litigator, I owe both my interest and my success in large part to my colleagues and mentors. Three of my litigation partners from Latham & Watkins, who were a generation ahead of me at the firm, have had significant roles at Burford for some years. When I retired from practice, after an almost-respectful interval, they approached me about joining another team-oriented, entrepreneurial firm. I wasn’t going to turn down the second job offer I got from those guys.

LD: Smart move! What’s your day-to-day like now?

AL: I have three roles at Burford. Principally, I’m a member of the nine-person Commitment Committee, which reviews and ultimately approves the investments we make in legal claims. I also work with our underwriters and case managers on matters that fall within my expertise. I write the occasional article on certain aspects of legal finance. And, of course, I answer the phone when someone calls me directly with a new opportunity for us to consider.

LD: What do you like about your new career path?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

AL: The great thing about my Burford role is how it captures my favorite parts of practicing law – the intellectual challenge, the collegiality, the satisfaction of adding value while relieving me of a lot of the overburden that partnership in a global law firm imposes at this point in history. Brainstorming with a group of really smart, gung-ho lawyers, in pursuit of taking an already great institution to an even higher level, was the most fun I had at Latham, and I have the same fun today – without timesheets, bills, collections and the rest of the overhead time and stress. The only thing I truly miss from practice is cross-examination. For a lawyer there’s nothing quite like it – looking across at that witness is High Noon or the Wimbledon final.

I graduated high school at 16 and law school at 23, clerked for a year, and then settled down to 35 years of practice at Latham & Watkins. In hindsight, that was an unnecessarily hurried path, especially for a guy who started out always sleeping late, procrastinating and watching a great deal of TV. But I always wanted to see what was over the next hill sooner rather than later. Burford satisfies that need for me today.

LD: Did you consider any paths other than law school?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

93

100 NAME

COMPANY

Ruth Teitelbaum

Tenor Capital Management

New York

Raymond Tellini

Delta Capital Partners

Chicago

Sean Thompson

Parabellum Capital

New York

Raymond van Hulst

Omni Bridgeway

Geneva

Roland Vigne

IVO Capital Partners

Paris

Max Volsky

LexShares

New York

Ross Wallin

Curiam Capital

New York

Marcel Wegmueller

Nivalion

Steinhausen/Zug, Switzerland

Boaz Weinstein

Lake Whillans

New York

Mark Wells

Calunius Capital

London

Wieger Wielinga

Omni Bridgeway

Amsterdam

Aviva Will

Burford Capital

New York

Katharine Wolanyk

Burford Capital

Chicago

Louis Young

Augusta Ventures

London

Alan Zimmerman

Law Finance Group

Mill Valley, Calif.

Michael Zuckerman

Redress Solutions

London

94

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

100

AL: I was a philosophy major, and gave serious consideration to going into academia – both my parents were academics, and life on a university campus, solving intellectual puzzles, is not a bad gig. But, as I’ve put it before, when I graduated from college in 1978, the big downtown philosophy firms were not hiring.

Plus, I was always interested in having a nice car and choosing a place to live where it didn’t snow and rain.

I’ve never regretted my choice. Philosophy was of course an excellent grounding in logic, epistemology and rigorous thought and expression in general. But it’s really the opportunity to work with a committed team of smart people toward a clear objective and a definite result that has provided my greatest professional satisfaction, and I’m not sure the academy would have given me all of that.

LD: Do you think that that young philosophy major would be surprised at where your career has ended up?

AL: Even the law-firm partner is a little surprised. Obviously, legal finance didn’t exist at all for most of my years in practice. As I started thinking about retiring from the law firm, I saw myself keeping a hand in the legal game as an arbitrator and mediator (I am an AAA arbitrator and Master Mediator), a fairly common path for recovering litigators. I do have that shingle hanging, but the legal finance business is something new for me to explore, and very exciting for all involved.

LD: Are there particular courses or professors from law school that stand out as memorable to you?

AL: There were many, but the one I put at the top is Arthur Miller, the king of Civil Procedure. He made procedure – the rules of the game – incredibly interesting. I have long told people that there are two kinds of litigators, poker players and chess players, and I was the latter: Give me a set of rules, let me collect all of the information my opponent has, and then let’s see who can think more moves ahead. Learning those rules from Professor Miller was like taking a guitar lesson from Eddie Van Halen three days a week – even if you mastered only a tiny fragment at the time, it showed you the possibilities.

LD: Do you have any advice for current law school students or young professionals who may wish to have a similar type of career?

AL: I have a long list of do’s and don’ts that I inflict on young people, but the big three are: First, be a straight shooter, every minute. Next, if you care more than the other guy or gal about it, whatever “it” is, you are going to rise to the top. Finally, whatever else you

do, find a way to make yourself indispensable.

LD: Litigation financing is a booming area, but it’s not always well understood. Do you think the industry is starting to catch on to how useful it can be?

AL: Only after joining Burford did I realize myself just how little I actually knew about legal finance while I was in practice, and how much more I wish I’d known.

It could really have benefited both my practice and my clients’ and potential clients’ interests. So, in the same way that law school may not teach you all the answers, but can at least equip you to be a competent issue-spotter, I think some real basic education in how legal finance works can give lawyers and clients an entrée to a huge range of options for structuring their relationships and their cases. A big part of my focus is just trying to get the Legal Finance 101 message out and make it part of the discussion that clients and lawyers have every time they look at a new case.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re not working?

AL: My wife and I are avid travelers, especially off the beaten track – our honeymoon included a fiveday trek through the Himalaya in Bhutan – so we are always on the lookout for new adventures like that.

We’ve also upped our game on the ski hill the past few years, and now have a real chance at getting in several dozen days a year.

Using “fun” very loosely, I made the mistake of taking up golf recently. From that, I deduced that there is nothing harder than learning golf, so I just got myself a guitar. The difference is, if I can play a C chord on Monday, it’s very unlikely I won’t be able to play it on Thursday. For the past few years, I’ve also been in pursuit of the grand prize in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, which recognizes the composition of the first sentence of the worst of all possible novels. Writing badly is hard work – I’ve been a runner-up eleven times – but maybe 2021 will be my year.

LD: Ha! Good luck. Do you have a favorite book or movie about the law?

AL: I should probably say “Witness for the Prosecution,” which is marvelous, but if I’m being honest, I have to confess that I’m a sucker for “A Few Good Men.” That cross – “You can’t handle the truth!” – gets me every time. Plus, of course, it illustrates one of my top three pieces of advice to young lawyers: If you care more than your opponent does, you’ll prevail. Only when Tom Cruise finally really cares about his clients does he get the best out of himself – and the better of Jack Nicholson, too.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

95

100

L EADE RS I N FINA NC IA L A DVIS I N G NAME

COMPANY

Charles Agee

Westfleet Advisors

Nashville

Maddi Azpiroz

Claim Trading

London

James Blick

The Judge

Irvine, Calif.

Steven Huttler

Sadis

New York

Nicholas Kajon

Stevens & Lee

New York

Barry Kamar

Westfleet Advisors

Nashville

Michael Kelley

Parker Poe

Washington, D.C.

Andrew Langhoff

Red Bridges Advisors

Bronxville, N.Y.

Gretchen Lowe

Westfleet Advisors

Nashville

Michael Perich

Westfleet Advisors

Nashville

96

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOCATION

“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.

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 2020

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

WWW.NEWELLIS.COM

100

WE’RE EXCITED TO INTRODUCE THE LAWDRAGON GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING. This year, the 4th in which we’ve published this guide, is a bit different. We are celebrating a birthday party on a tenuous day.

The 100 experts in management, marketing, communication and recruiting recognized here are among the world’s most valued by law firm leaders. But as we all know, value is transitory when you’re in a tailspin.

Value in that circumstance is foremost – and only – getting out alive.

We are all learning to celebrate life’s victories in uncertain times. And this guide provides a moment to recognize a tremendous cross-section of professionals to whom lawyers actually pay money for advice. Our methodology is a dogged, slightly ridiculous, determined ongoing conversation 365 days a year with leaders of the profession as to those they trust with their future. Who crafts their difficult export of the bondage-practicing partner into a headline with an amicable split? Who helps a foundering midweight Midwest firm aspire to greatness? Who are those bankers helping firms ensure they have the lines of credit to keep a firm going in a pandemic?

And about that tailspin: From Covid-19, you’ll clearly note, for example, the absence of real estate brokers and other advisers whose role going forward is in real flux. From the prolonged metastases of discrimination in elite law firms, you’ll note that – let’s just say it, shall we? – if legal consultants resemble the firms they advise, we could all do better.

Disarray and confusion about the future requires innovative thinking and new approaches from these titans of legal advice. And who better to advise on communications, which is paramount in reestablishing cohesion and confidence.

So onward. They bring their A game every day – as we all must.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

99

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

AbstoneLalley

Chicago

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

James Bates

Sitrick

Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Mark Beese

Leadership for Lawyers

Evergreen, Colo.

Management Consulting

Louise Beeson

Bell Yard

London

Crisis Communications

Deborah Ben-Canaan

Major Lindsey & Africa

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Dan Binstock

Garrison & Sisson

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Robert Brenner

K2 Intelligence

New York

Corporate Investigations

Lori Carpenter

Carpenter Legal Search

Pittsburgh

Professional Recruiting

Jennifer Simpson

Furia Rubel

Carr

Communications

Doylestown, Pa.

Marketing & Communications

Michael Coston

Coston Consulting

New York

Marketing & Communications

Silvia Coulter

LawVision

Manchester, Mass.

Legal Consulting

Darryl Cross

HighPer Teams

Washington, D.C.

Management Consulting

Lanny Davis

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Melinda Delmonico

Gibson Arnold & Assoc.

Denver

Professional Recruiting

Alex Dimitrief

Zeughauser Group

New York

Management Consulting

Jamie Diaferia

Infinite Global

New York

Media & Communications

Rodney Abstone-Carabajal

100

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

CONTRIBUTION Professional Consulting & Recruiting

100

MICHAEL COSTON

BY KATRINA DEWEY

IT’S ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS TO MICHAEL COSTON. Anyone who knows the New York-based legal marketing, communications and equality consultant understands that.

After all, how else to explain how one of the too-rare Black professionals in legal marketing rose from a local firm on Long Island, to be one of only a very few Black chief marketing officers among major U.S. law firms?

Knowing the strategic playbook helps, of course.

But the edge is in being the person you’re happy to hear from, whose success you want to encourage, whose journey you want to share.

That’s the bond Coston forged with Dallas trial legend Mike McKool and the leaders of McKool Smith, whose marketing efforts Coston led for nearly a decade before starting his own firm, Coston Consulting. Today he remains a key advisor to McKool Smith, and advises other firms, as well, on business development; marketing; and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

“You can be brilliant and have the best ideas, but it won’t matter if you don’t have strong connections within your organization that help you get the buy-in necessary to make a difference,” says Coston.

“I’ve always been genuinely interested in the partners that I’ve worked with, their areas of business, their motivations and perspectives,” he says. “It helps build solid relationships and that’s really important for a CMO as you’re trying to foster consensus and create alignment to move initiatives forward.”

But as a child? “If you asked me at 6 or 7 what I wanted to be, I would have said, ‘A lawyer,’” Coston says. “I didn’t know anything at all about the law. I just associated lawyers with success.”

As he was completing his undergraduate degrees at University of Albany in African American Studies and English, he made plans to take the Law School Admissions Test. The week before the exam, he had a change of heart.

“Soon after that, I fell in love with PR.” He would later become the head of public relations for the Tweezerman brand. How did he end up in the legal industry?

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

After earning a Master’s degree in communication, he scoured The New York Times job listings and came across a law firm seeking a public relations director.

The position was meant to be.

Lawdragon: So, reading the help wanted ads?

Michael Coston: That’s how it all started. I stumbled upon this firm, Forchelli Curto. During my interview, I met with one of the partners, Barbara Alesi, who asked where I was from. When I answered, “Glen Cove, Long Island,” she said, “My partner, John Terrana, is the former city attorney for Glen Cove.” And I said, “Oh, I know him. My mother was his secretary for many years.”

She called him in, he looked at me and then gave me the biggest hug. I hadn’t seen John in decades, but I literally grew up in his office. Then he introduced me to Jeffrey Forchelli, the founder and head partner of the firm.

Fast forward, I get the job and I go to meet with Jeff Forchelli. During our meeting, he tells me that my father, Michael Coston, who died when I was 16, was the firm’s first client.

LD: Are you kidding?

MC: Isn’t that something? Apparently, my father needed a lawyer for whatever reason way back when,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

101

100 and my mother called the first lawyer she came across – Jeff Forchelli.

and principles? Do you know the firm’s style and culture? That’s all very important.

It was totally, completely meant to be. I ended up reconnecting with John, the only lawyer I had ever known, whom my mom had worked with for many years. And then he ends up working at a firm where my father was the first client. I worked for that firm for maybe three years, and on each firm anniversary, Jeff would say, “And how awesome is it that Michael is our PR director and his father was our first client?”

LD: When you look at how you could go from just coming in – obviously with a great resume and an amazing personality – to not only taking the role you did in the New York office of a Texas firm, but to become one of the most effective leaders and voices in that unusual combination, it says a lot about you and about the firm.

LD: That’s the best story.

MC: That firm was my home, but someone came along and offered me an amazing opportunity; and that was Iris Jones. She was the CMO at Chadbourne & Parke and approached me about a position as director of marketing. I interviewed and didn’t get the job, but we kept in touch. Many months later, she called and urged me to apply for a business development role in litigation.

That’s how I moved to Chadbourne. It was a big deal for me because I grew up in the suburbs of Long Island and dreamed about working in Manhattan. The firm’s offices were in Rockefeller Center, and I was at this large international law firm. I come from very humble beginnings, so it was a huge opportunity.

You couldn’t tell me that I hadn’t made it.

LD: You had made it. As you started progressing through the large corporate law firm world, what were some of the skills or lessons that shaped your success?

MC: I’ve always believed that relationships matter most. Especially when you’re an in-house legal marketer. It’s very much a business of relationships.

Legal marketers always tell lawyers to strive to be their clients’ trusted advisor. We need to take our own advice. There’s a certain playing field that’s established on trust. And that trust helps you secure the access that you need to do your job well.

LD: You definitely were able to build trust and rapport with people throughout McKool. When you were working with them on different strategies or approaches to build the firm’s national reputation for excellence, you were all working from the same fabric.

MC: As a CMO, it’s important for leadership to know that you have your finger on the pulse of the organization. Leadership wants to know how connected you are to the institution, not just in terms of its business, but in terms of its feel and what the organization represents. Are you in tune with the firm’s values

102

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MC: I was only 32 years old at the time and I had a point to prove. Failure wasn’t an option, although I certainly had my doubts. Here I am, a relatively young Black guy from New York gunning for CMO at this established Texas-based national trial firm. I didn’t know how they would receive me. I remember listening to Biggie Smalls as I entered the elevator for my first interview in Dallas. I still laugh about how that might have been perceived. But the firm’s leaders supported and encouraged me. It made me so committed to the firm that every time I swung the bat, I wanted to hit the ball over the moon.

LD: Can we talk about diversity and inclusion and its impact on you as a person, but also on your business? We’ve talked about this for a long time, but it feels like after the killing of George Floyd, there is a new level of commitment. Maybe.

MC: I’m encouraged by organizations who are serious about advancing their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Not the ones who are just making public announcements about their commitments to Black folks (without acting on them) or writing checks to various racial equity-related non-profits while not investing time and/or resources to advance DEI within their own organization.

LD: How can you help a firm make it OK to talk about that?

MC: I think it starts at the top. When the leadership is removed from the process, it creates a disconnect and obstacles to achieving the support that’s required for real, true diversity, equity, and inclusion work.

It’s important for organizations to go through a process of serious introspection, especially in the leadership and C-suite ranks, to see themselves (and each other) more clearly in terms of where they and the organization are in relation to DEI. This process can reveal certain truths that oftentimes prevent organizations from advancing their DEI efforts. And, unfortunately, many companies are not living in their own truths. After that, it’s important to be aspirational in defining what real DEI success looks like for your

100

IF THERE ARE ONLY WHITE MEN IN THE LEADERSHIP RANKS, THEN THAT’S WHERE THE DISCUSSION AND WORK SHOULD START. THIS IS WHEN THE PROCESS OF HONEST INTROSPECTION CAN REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. organization. What does it feel like as a culture? What does it mean for your people? How will you know if you’ve accomplished your goals? When you’ve done the honest introspection and defined what DEI success looks like for your organization, it helps you create and implement strategies that provide real impact and meaningful change.

LD: When you say this is a discussion that starts with the leadership, in a lot of firms, that leadership is not inclusive or only very lightly so. What is the path for a group of largely white and male leaders to come up with a quantifiable, measurable goal that goes beyond just “being inclusive”? The goal has to be more like, “We are building a plane, and it must fly,” right?

MC: If there are only white men in the leadership ranks, then that’s where the discussion and work should start. This is when the process of honest introspection can really make a difference. Let’s discuss and dissect, “Why aren’t there any women at this table? Why aren’t there any people of color?

What has (or hasn’t) happened along the way to create this organizational whiteness?”

Of course, there are many ways to look at and measure DEI goals. We usually use a mix of qualitative measures related to level of engagement and organizational satisfaction, and quantitative measures that provide metrics for management/leadership performance, retention, vertical diversity, etc. It’s important to keep your eye out for actual impact.

LD: Right. I think we all saw, after George Floyd’s death and the protests, people at a lot of firms thinking, “We need to put up a statement on our website.” And I’m sure many firms debated whether that statement should include Black Lives Matter, but didn’t necessarily consider how they would respond to associates, for instance, joining demonstrations. What do you say to firms when they seek advice in those kinds of cases?

MC: So many companies scrambled to write external statements and make public assurances about their support of Black people without even checking on or communicating with their own Black employees.

Think about that. Many companies also wrote massive checks to various college funds to help Black students gain access to higher education but haven’t invested one dollar in the development or sponsorship of their own Black professionals. Don’t get me wrong.

A good deed is a good deed, and these charitable efforts are certainly important, but a little authenticity goes a long way. I advised my clients to start with their own firms, and with their own people, to make sure everything was OK at home before they made any public statements or commitments.

LD: Exactly. And I think that the introspection you can help firms with is so critical because you are also so good at talking cross-generationally, to the leadership ranks and to the new generation of lawyers, who expect and deserve to be heard and are less afraid of rocking the boat. Which goes back to what you said about the biggest thing you’ve learned, right?

It’s having the relationships across all aisles and being able to influence different audiences.

MC: A few months ago, I asked my mother “When did you start talking to me about race and about being Black?” And she responded quickly, “Well, since you’ve been Black ...” and it really tickled me because she was right. As a family, we’ve always discussed race. It was one of the reasons why I focused on African American Studies in undergrad. At the time, so many people would say to me, “You’re already Black. Why are you taking Black studies?” but I was very much interested in the Black experience. I was also interested in racism and its impact on individuals, institutions and organizations. When you look at how those discussions have progressed since I completed undergrad 20 years ago, we’re still finding ourselves in the thick of it in terms of people being uncomfortable discussing race, racism, or the broad impact of systemic racism. Now, I’m no longer a student. I’m the CEO of my own consulting firm, and my team and I are helping organizations navigate through very important and complex issues that oftentimes involve race, and specifically, Black people. I feel like I’ve come full circle.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

103

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Steve DiMattia

Greentarget

New York

Marketing & Communications

Mike Dolan

Finsbury

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

Deborah Farone

Farone Advisors LLC

New York

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Jeremy Fielding

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communications

Ross Fishman

Fishman Marketing

Highland Park, Ill.

Marketing & Communications

Andrew Frank

KARV Communications

New York

Crisis Communications

Nick Gaffney

Zumado

San Francisco

Marketing & Communications

Joshua Galper

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Kerry Gibson

Citi Private Bank

Los Angeles

Financial Advisor

Adam Goldberg

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

James Haggerty

PRCG Haggerty

New York

Crisis Communications

Philip Hall

Portland

London

Crisis Communications

Philip Hamilton

LogicForce

Nashville

Technology Advisor

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

John Hellerman

Hellerman Communications

Bruce Hennes

Hennes Communications

Cleveland

Crisis Management

John Holmes

Jomati Consultants

London

Management Consulting

Paul Holmes

Finsbury

New York

Crisis Communications

104

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

JENNIFER JOHNSON

BY ALISON PREECE

JENNIFER JOHNSON IS CEO AND FOUNDER OF

Calibrate Legal, which offers recruiting and consulting services for law firms. Their signature is a focus on Revenue Enablers™, a trademarked term that they use to describe non-lawyer business professionals who support profitability. The firm also consults on technology investments and uses data analyses to boost the productiveness of various business development and administrative groups within law firms.

Johnson, a graduate of Baylor University, is a natural networker who enjoys long-standing relationships with law firm management leaders. She is a member of the Lawdragon 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists.

Lawdragon: Will you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry?

Jennifer Johnson: We help law firms fill critical business services roles, including C-suite leaders, marketing and business development professionals, general management positions, competitive and business intelligence experts, and those focused on transformation/innovation.

Our consulting services are focused on empowering Revenue Enablers with the infrastructure they need to deliver results. We help law firms achieve superior results through the strategic use of metrics, alignment, processes, data and technology.

LD: How did you first become interested in legal consulting and recruiting?

JJ: I fell into it accidentally after spending six years in lawyer recruitment and marketing at an Am Law 100 firm before joining a recruiting firm where I focused on recruiting for law firm marketing positions.

I started my own firm, J. Johnson Executive Search, in 2011 and in 2017 we rebranded as Calibrate Legal to reflect our expanded scope of consulting and advisory services. I also wanted to take the focus off of me and take my name off of ‘the door’ because there are some talented professionals on our team with their own brand equity that I wanted to shine a light on.

LD: So you’ve spent two decades inside, and as a consultant to, law firms. Can you share some lessons from the inside?

PHOTO BY: GITTINGS PHOTOGRAPHY

JJ: Over that time, I’ve learned the opportunities, challenges and nuances of law firm cultures. I continue to be deeply interested in working with law firms to improve their performance – whether through talent acquisition or through consulting. My team continuously scans the business world for trends and best practices that can help law firms innovate.

LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What do you like about working with lawyers?

JJ: Lawyers and law firms provide an intellectually stimulating environment! The people are extremely smart, and the issues they face are highly complex.

Having said that, most lawyers do not have formal business management training and we are working to infuse that into their cultures to help them run their firms more like a business.

LD: Do you have a recent challenge or interesting project you could tell us about?

JJ: In one recent project, we helped the head of Talent at an Am Law 100 firm with a search for a new C-suite leader for one of its key business services functions. The firm’s leadership wanted the selection process to be inclusive and responsive to the needs

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

105

100

WHEN IT COMES TO RECRUITING, MANY TRUE IMPACT PLAYERS ARE NOT ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW ROLES. WE SERVE AS A CLIENT’S INDUSTRY INSIDER, IDENTIFYING TALENT THAT ALIGNS WITH THEIR GOALS, GETTING THEIR ATTENTION, AND SUCCESSFULLY MARKETING THE OPPORTUNITY ON THE FIRM’S BEHALF. of more than 45 partners who would be involved.

Gaining consensus from this many stakeholders proved challenging – but we worked with the firm to create a fact-based, inclusive, rigorous selection process designed to eliminate bias and drive shared agreement.

LD: What trends are you seeing in legal recruiting these days?

JJ: Law firms are recognizing the importance of diversity and inclusion in their cultures, and this very much extends to the hiring of new team members.

Firms have historically focused on the diversity of their attorneys but have not recognized that those who are not fee earners do serve in a crucial capacity to ensure business success. Part of our mission is to change that. We are advocating for law firms to pay greater attention to their business services team, which represent up to 50 percent of the total employee population of many firms. When we conduct a search on behalf of a client, we always endeavor to deliver a diverse slate of candidates.

LD: Will you tell us about the work you’re doing with The Tilt Institute?

JJ: Yes, we recently announced an alliance with The Tilt Institute to expand our capabilities in the recruitment of Business and Competitive Intelligence roles. Under this alliance, Tilt Institute professionals will augment Calibrate’s executive search team for recruitment projects involving BI and CI roles by providing insights into the background, skills and training required for these professionals to succeed in law firms.

LD: Why did you decide to focus on this area?

JJ: We believe that Business and Competitive Intelligence is the next frontier for law firm business services teams. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, demand for research analysts is

106

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years, much faster than the average position. In legal, the trend is similar. Nearly 40 percent of law firms planned to add CI resources in 2018. That figure has only increased as data has become an increasingly vital part of gaining a competitive advantage in the law firm world. And, law firms need to be driven by data versus opinion and preference of the mostly highly paid partners, which historically has been how decisions are made.

LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a legal consultant and recruiter?

JJ: We seek to place candidates who are true “Revenue Enablers” for their firms. We’ve defined some characteristics of Revenue Enablers, and our team works to ensure these characteristics are front and center in the talent we present to our law firm clients.

The first is, they are “Business Partners.” Today’s Revenue Enablers are sophisticated and commercially aware business partners to their lawyers. They understand how law firms work, how they make money, and the challenges and pressure points that partnership environments face.

Next, they’re “Relationship Builders.” The most successful Revenue Enablers truly put client service ahead of everything else. They quickly come up to speed on who the firm’s internal and external clients are and find ways to meet and exceed expectations.

The best candidates are also “Analytical Thinkers.” Far from being purveyors of brochures and organizers of events, today’s Revenue Enablers understand how to translate complex data into themes with measurables and will give this data meaning to lawyers to guide them on where to go to generate new revenue.

These people are “Innate Leaders.” Revenue Enablers display leadership capabilities early in their careers.

They recognize that leadership takes practice and

100

fine-tuning. They capitalize on and shape people on their team to become true value-add, visionary thinkers, and don’t hesitate to give credit where credit is due.

They have a “Bias Toward Action.” Revenue Enablers are masters at juggling the ability to provide both strategic input and tactical execution. While thinking strategically and leading the firm towards higher profitability is a must, our clients do not want someone who will rest on their laurels; they expect continuous activity, action and results. Period.

Another characteristic is that they “Invest in Themselves.” Revenue Enablers are focused on getting proper skills and career development training for themselves to stay fresh and current, which will ensure they provide regular and fresh perspectives to their firm.

They tend to be “People Managers.” Revenue Enablers are experts at managing up, down and sideways, on a regular and intentional basis. This helps manage expectations and keeps people engaged and working at their highest and best.

Finally, they are “Highly Collaborative.” Revenue Enablers know how to build and leverage internal relationships. They recognize the need for support from of all of the other professional departments in the firm to get their job done successfully. They recognize that tomorrow’s law firm will not succeed in the old siloed format; they are very smart about developing and nurturing strong alliances with internal business units.

LD: This is such a useful roadmap for anyone looking to add value to their firms. And it speaks highly to the level of work coming out of Calibrate! Can you tell us more about the work ethos at your firm?

JJ: Clients’ insight and goals provide the fundamentals of our search or advice. Before any project begins, we gather input from key stakeholders to educate ourselves on the dynamics and to observe and absorb our client’s culture. With that background, we tailor our candidate search or operations counsel to match the distinct personality of the firm.

Clients’ time is a precious commodity. Because we specialize in this space, we can work efficiently and effectively. In search campaigns, we can execute and provide results to our clients within four weeks of the search launch. In consulting engagements, we work expeditiously so the client can see results – and enjoy early wins.

One of the advantages of retaining Calibrate Legal is that the client projects a sophisticated message to the marketplace that says they recognize the value of its business functions and are willing to invest in their talent, technology and success.

When it comes to recruiting, many true impact players are not actively seeking new roles. We serve as a client’s industry insider, identifying talent that aligns with their goals, getting their attention, and successfully marketing the opportunity on the firm’s behalf.

We tailor our work to the client’s needs and culture.

In recruiting, our partnership is only valuable if we can cultivate an impressive short list of true talent, not simply those with the obvious background. Similarly, in consulting, we curate ideas that can truly work at the firm. We’ll stand behind our recommendations that most closely align with the firm’s goals, and we’ll be prepared to explain our logic.

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

JJ: Get serious about purposeful networking! For example, when an industry event has an educational component, it’s pretty easy to slide into a chair and learn and then scoot out without engaging. One thing I learned quickly is that nobody wants to work the name tag table at an industry event. So, I volunteered to arrive early and check people in. It offered me three things: first, a purpose for attending; next, an opportunity to put faces with names; and third, visibility to leadership who otherwise would be manning the table themselves. It was a win-win. I helped them and the role helped me. I was consistent in my offer to help (and I showed up!) and members of leadership suggested I vie for a role on the Board.

About a year after attending my first industry event I was attending a Board leadership retreat.

LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities?

JJ: I am passionate about service to the law firm marketing community. I’ve held numerous leadership positions within the Legal Marketing Association, including currently serving as Secretary of the International Board of Directors. In 2017 I was inducted into the College of Law Practice Management, which recognizes distinguished leaders in the profession. I’m also a Fellow of the ALM Intelligence Program. Outside of the industry, I have been very actively involved with Dress for Success and, in 2012, I received a Gordy Award from the CEO for my service and dedication.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

107

100 FULL NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Vivian Hood

Jaffe

Jacksonville

Crisis Communications

Kay Hoppe

Credentia

Chicago

Professional Recruiting

Natasha Innocenti

Macrae

San Francisco

Professional Recruiting

Terry Isner

Jaffe

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Nancy Jessen

UnitedLex

Washington, D.C.

Legal Services Delivery

Jennifer Johnson

Calibrate Legal

Austin

Marketing & Communications

Jason Juceam

Brunswick

New York

Crisis Communications

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

Jeremy Kroll

K2 Intelligence

New York

Corporate Investigations

Benita Kumar

Jomati Consultants

London

Management Consulting

Brunswick

New York

Crisis Communications

Liz Lindley

Jaffe

Washington, D.C.

Marketing & Communications

Jon Lindsey

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiting

Sabina Lippman

Lippman Jungers Bala

Los Angeles

Professional Recruiting

Harlan Loeb

Edelman

Chicago

Crisis Communications

Andrew Longstreth

Infinite Global

New York

Media & Communications

Vijay Luthra

Lippman Jungers Bala

New York

Professional Recruiting

Joe Macrae

Macrae

San Francisco

Professional Recruiting

Shahed Fakhari Larson

108

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

JOE MACRAE

BY ALISON PREECE

A FORMER SOLICITOR IN LONDON, JOE

Macrae made a timely move into legal recruiting.

He co-founded a recruiting firm in 1991 and quickly became quite busy as major U.S. law firms fortified their European arms throughout that decade. In 2001, he founded Macrae, which has since become a highly respected recruiting firm focused on strategic counsel for partners throughout their careers in both the U.S. and UK. He is based in California.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry and to whom?

Joe Macrae: Macrae has market-leading offices in London, New York, D.C. and the Bay Area. We work closely with an array of law firms including the Am Law 100 and 200 as well as the Magic Circle and other leading UK firms and top boutiques in all our markets. We specialize in office openings and the movement of partners and teams. We form relationships with the most successful partners in the markets in which we work and aim to become their trusted career advisers whether or not they decide to move firms.

LD: How did you first become interested in legal recruiting?

JM: I was a newly qualified solicitor in London, loving learning about my law firm, Herbert Smith as it then was, including its culture and what made it successful. Sadly I was less excited by the billable hour and executing on other people’s deals. I answered an old-fashioned newspaper job advertisement about a role that needed a legal qualification and an entrepreneurial disposition. My wife supported me in taking a 50 percent pay cut and moving into sales in August 1988 and I have never looked back.

With hindsight I realize that the timing of my move was deeply fortuitous. The lateral partner market in the UK was non-existent at that time and so when the UK laws changed, and American law firms were able to hire English partners, we were perfectly positioned to service that nascent market.

LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What do you like about working with lawyers?

JM: First off, I enjoy studying the wide array of law firms with which we work and seeing which practice

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

areas, geographies and types of culture deliver the greatest success for our clients.

I also appreciate having the privilege to meet and talk to some of the brightest and best legal minds in multiple markets as they evaluate what is best for their careers. I enjoy working for law firm leaders in firms large and small, in the U.S. and UK, and observing what it is about them that enables them and their firms to achieve their goals.

I like working with lawyers because they are analytical, expect detailed and thoughtful answers, and tend to respond well to logical market analysis.

LD: Is there a recruiting effort from your long career that stands out as being particularly memorable for you?

JM: At a time when the top partners in the UK were earning around $300k I worked on a project for a U.S. client where our newspaper advertisement – quaint as it may sound these days! – said, “Call us to discuss a move to a U.S. firm that will pay you $1 million per year.” At the time the move by the U.S. firm was sufficiently audacious that it made not just the legal news but the national business news in the UK. The project failed because, despite eliciting

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

109

100 significant interest from successful partners at top UK firms, the cultural and strategic divide between the client and the partners they were trying to hire was so great that it could not be bridged at that time.

I apply the lessons from that project 25 years later, and the market has changed beyond recognition since that time.

LD: Will you talk a bit about your time as a lawyer, and what brought you to the law in the first place?

JM: I grew up in the West of England and studied law at Manchester University in the early 1980s. At that time the only degrees I was really aware of were law, accounting and medicine. I was the first member of my family to go to University and studied law because I did not want to be an accountant and fall over at the sight of blood. When I qualified I was offered “Articles” at Herbert Smith in London. This was a two-year training contract which was both wonderful fun and great experience. The Articled Clerks did four to six monthly rotations in different departments to gain exposure to an array of legal disciplines.

My favorite “seat” was in litigation. This was only because the partner for whom I worked had one of the first mobile phones in London. It was the size of a suitcase and my job for six months was to walk a respectful distance behind him and when he shouted “phone” to run up and deliver the suitcase. I was allowed to stand within earshot for the calls and learned more in that six months than any other seat.

LD: Did you imagine at the time that you might end up doing legal recruiting?

JM: When I was a kid and a student at law school I had never even heard of legal recruiting, in part because the industry hardly existed at that time. Like many of my peers I had virtually no clue as to where my career would go. I followed my instincts as to what sounded like a fun, stimulating role where I would be fairly rewarded for my work. And it turned out that way.

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

JM: I don’t think many people go to or leave university dreaming of a career in legal recruiting. What I would say is that if you love people, enjoy sales and have a fascination with the legal profession, there is no better job.

110

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life?

JM: Yes, two. The first advised me at the age of 28 that I could either take the plunge then and set up my own business or hunker down, raise my family and think about it again when I was in my 50s as my kids started to leave home. I am glad I went for the first option.

The second told me “do not expect what you cannot inspect” and helped me realize that you need process and structure and transparency in a successful company. Some of that may not be very exciting but it is critical.

LD: You mentioned how this was a nascent industry when you first started. Can you talk more about how your profession has changed since the early part of your career?

JM: Beyond recognition. In the late 80s in London, few partners made lateral moves. Thirty years later the market is more dynamic and exciting than ever before.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office?

JM: At 8am every Monday that I am in Palo Alto I have a guitar lesson. It is a wonderful distraction from work and sets me up for the week. I have been taking lessons for 15 years and am still absolutely average at playing but love it. Beyond my love of music I enjoy many aspects of life in California, from paddle boarding to biking. I also enjoy travel to far-flung places and I think some of our best family bonding experiences have been when those trips have taken unexpected turns.

LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities?

JM: I have always loved India and was fortunate enough to get introduced to the American India Foundation, a fantastic charity that raises money for an array of causes in India centered around child literacy, maternal health and helping people with any kind of disability. I help promote the charity and have had some life changing moments on trips to India with them to see the impact of their work.

LD: If you weren’t a legal recruiter, what would you be doing now?

JM: Touring anywhere that would have me playing a mixture of old country and western, and blues.

100

VIJAY LUTHRA

BY ALISON PREECE

VIJAY LUTHRA IS DRAWN TO THE STRATEGIC

nature of legal recruiting, and has built a name for himself in the space through taking a keen interest in his clients’ business and career goals. He is innately very curious and that attracts him to learning about both new and arcane areas of legal specializations, which helps build trust with ‘rainmakers’ and law firm leaders alike, who appreciate his savvy and integrity as he partners closely with them on executing some of their most ambitious plans for growth.

As the industry shifts this year from the effects of the pandemic, Luthra is keeping pace with the busiest firms, providing strategic guidance as the lateral market heats up. A managing director at legal recruiting powerhouse Lippman Junger, Vijay has been a leading recruiter for over a decade.

Lawdragon: Will you please describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry and to whom?

Vijay Luthra: Sure. Because I work for a premier legal recruiting agency with a client base made up of the country’s most elite law firms, my work focuses on partnering closely with our clients to develop strategies from a more creative/consulting perspective to help them accomplish their most important strategic hiring goals. Examples of our work include searching for leading partners with law practices that could transformationally impact our clients ability to service their own clients, or growing the base of law firm’s own business, such as when a firm wants to make a strong push to grow their New York-based private equity practice by hiring a highly visible and reputable turnkey group out of another firm.

We also have considerable experience assisting clients with opening new offices in various geographic markets, which has resulted in meaningful growth for our client in each office we helped them to open.

And in addition to the satisfaction and financial rewards stemming from the successful opening of a new office, the ‘additional perks’ can be great too – for example, one of my partners is gifted a Michael Jordan autographed basketball every time he helps a client open a new office!! He has three basketballs so far.

LD: How did you first become interested in legal recruiting?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

ONE OF THE BIGGEST DRAWS TO THIS PROFESSION IS WORKING CLOSELY WITH SOME OF THE MOST EDUCATED, INFORMED AND ACCOMPLISHED ATTORNEYS IN THE WORLD. VL: It really struck me about two years into being in this profession. At the time, for most of my career I was largely “cold calling” and working on backoffice tasks, and less client facing work. But then someone, who would go on to be a mentor, took me to a meeting he had scheduled with a client (he only took me because the two other colleagues who were supposed to join him called out sick that day). It was during this meeting that I realized how involved our company really was with the law firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

111

100

LEGAL RECRUITERS TEND TO LEARN A LOT ABOUT THE COMPLEX, TIMELY, CONSEQUENTIAL AND THORNY NATURE OF THE WORK THEIR CLIENTS DO, AND TO DO THEIR JOBS EFFECTIVELY RECRUITERS OFTEN NEED TO STAY INFORMED AND UP TO DATE ON ISSUES IMPACTING OUR CLIENTS AND CANDIDATES. in terms of hammering out a recruitment strategy and identifying the best path to accomplish it. It all felt complex and sophisticated, which I found very appealing. That insight really then spurred me on to dive into the new search that I was now on and learn all the background behind why that particular search was strategic to the firm and how to develop an approach to be the most effective advocate for the firm and opportunity. With the help of a few people who really invested in my success, things sort of took off and I have never looked back, and now it’s hard to really see myself doing anything other than this.

LD: What do you like about working with lawyers?

VL: I think most legal recruiters would agree that one of the biggest draws to this profession is working closely with some of the most educated, informed and accomplished attorneys in the world. Legal recruiters tend to learn a lot about the complex, timely, consequential and thorny nature of the work their clients do, and to do their jobs effectively recruiters often need to stay informed and up to date on issues impacting our clients and candidates. That aspect of our profession can be very satisfying – and scary. For example, to better acquaint myself with a remote corner of international trade law (call it “CFIUS” for short), I read a book by a leading partner in this space [“Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism”

by Stewart Baker] that was very helpful in sketching out policy issues. That understanding helped contribute to my successful placement of a Band 1 ranked CFIUS partner not long after finishing the book.

LD: What partner, can you share?

VL: Sure, Farhad Jalinous, to White & Case.

LD: Looking back at your career so far, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve worked on for a law firm?

112

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

VL: There have been lots of interesting engagements I’ve worked on in my career, and that makes it hard to pick just one standout experience. That said, working with one of the largest law firms in the world, Baker McKenzie, to help grow its New York City office to a more meaningful size was, and continues to be, an interesting experience. They are the first client I led efforts on to establish and deepen a relationship with, which is now going on strong for over four years. And it’s also very satisfying to then be singled out for my efforts by the client as being an important part of why the firm has been highly successful in accomplishing its goal of building out the New York office (not to mention the gift baskets, Tiffany’s presents for my daughter, great advice on restaurants in Milan and trips to coffee plantations in Nicaragua!).

LD: Has the pandemic been impacting the market in a significant way, from your viewpoint?

VL: Yes, there are a few surprising trends in the market that have resulted in a lot of work of late. First, there is a higher degree of support and commitment from a larger number of firms to make larger investments than they historically have towards recruiting laterals, and at much greater compensation levels. Second, by now firms have had enough time to see the impact the Covid pandemic has had on their financial budgets, and a number of firms have emerged from this to be very busy, with some even having recordbreaking years. Third, attorneys focusing on certain specializations, such as private equity, continue to be in very high demand, and demand for attorneys with expertise in specializations where there hasn’t been high demand in recent years, like restructuring, has spiked.

100

JESSE DUNGAN

BY ALISON PREECE

JESSE DUNGAN IS PARTICULARLY WELL-SUITED

for the world of legal communications: He has a background in journalism and an insatiable curiosity for the many ways in which the legal system shapes both our individual lives and the ways companies do business. He thrives on distilling complex legal subjects into media narratives with broad appeal, and works closely with attorneys and C-suite executives to spearhead communications strategies that support company goals.

Dungan often helps shape the press coverage – and therefore popular sentiment – of high-profile litigation matters, giving credence to the importance of the “court of public opinion” in major cases. A reporter for several years in the San Francisco Bay area, he is currently a Vice President at communications powerhouse Infinite Global.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry and to whom?

Jesse Dungan: I develop strategic communications plans to help law firms achieve their goals, ranging from winning business and supporting litigation strategy to managing reputations and recruiting new talent. A common thread in much of the work I do is media relations.

I also work with outside counsel on crisis communications plans to protect the reputations of companies and individuals and mitigate the impact of negative news. Sometimes, this means developing a plan to support a litigation strategy, but oftentimes, it means working behind the scenes for matters that never become public.

LD: What do you enjoy about this work?

JD: As a former reporter, I enjoy working with the media, whether it is pitching a story or working with a journalist to flesh out an angle or finding an appropriate source for a piece they are developing.

A big part of what I do is wrapping my head around complex subject-matter and developing a strategy to make it easy for a wide range of audiences to understand. I really enjoy doing this. Every day, my clients handle matters with major implications for the general public, whether arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court or working on a pro bono matter in support of civil rights. But some of my cli-

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

ents don’t always know the best way to frame these matters for journalists or the public more broadly. It is rewarding to play a part in making sure their stories are told accurately and reach the right audiences.

LD: It’s fascinating and such crucial work. You are sort of a translator between the legal system and the media. Are there any matters you’ve worked on that stand out as particularly interesting, either because of the subject matter or the obstacles you had to get the story to light?

JD: A couple matters come to mind.

Early in my PR career, I worked with the winning firm in a U.S. Supreme Court case that made it easier for defendants to recoup attorney fees in frivolous patent lawsuits. It was an important case for businesses and consumers, and my client was on the right side of the issue. It was very rewarding to help drive the communications plan leading up to oral argument and following the court’s decision. Our team secured an incredible amount of coverage to support our client’s position and promote the outstanding work being done at the firm.

More recently, I advised an attorney on a pro bono matter in which he helped negotiate a settlement to

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

113

100 FULL NAME Tim Maltin

Stefanie Marrone

ORGANIZATION Maltin PR Stefanie Marrone

LOCATION Holborn, London, United Kingdom

CONTRIBUTION Crisis Communications

New York

Social Media

Mercury

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Eleanor McManus

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communications

Bobbie McMorrow

McMorrow Consulting

Summerland, Calif.

Professional Recruiting

Deborah McMurray

Content Pilot

Dallas

Laura Meherg

Wicker Park Group

Flat Rock, N.C.

Management Consulting

Patty Morrissy

Macrae

New York

Professional Recruiting

Ellen Moskowitz

Brunswick

New York

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

Lew Phelps

Sitrick

Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Peter Pochna

Rubenstein

New York

Marketing & Communications

Charlie Potter

Brunswick

London

Crisis Communications

Pat Rafferty

Androvett

Dallas

Media & Communications

Melanie Riley

Bell Yard

London

Crisis Communications

Ian Christopher McCaleb

114

Consulting

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Marketing, Branding & Communications

Media - Directory Maven

100

MY CAREER AS A JOURNALIST TAUGHT ME HOW TO ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS, DEVELOP STORY IDEAS, JUGGLE AND PRIORITIZE MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENTS, AND MEET DEADLINES. THESE ARE ALL SKILLS THAT HAVE BEEN INVALUABLE OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER IN PR. significantly reform a state foster care system that had been described as “broken.” My client’s goal was to secure an article in a top-tier publication that would promote a blueprint that other states could use to improve their own foster care systems. While I was able to secure preliminary interest from The New York Times, the publication then declined to cover the story after receiving additional details. One strike against the story were the initial shutdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which was dominating all news coverage. But with a little persistence and patience, I kept working with the journalist to educate him further on the issues. Ultimately, the work paid off with the story my client had envisioned in the Times.

LD: No easy feat when the world was focused on this unprecedented pandemic. Have you noticed any shifts in your clients’ thinking, including as we move through the coronavirus crisis?

JD: Firms and corporations are more attuned to the risk of crises, which has led to greater investments in crisis communications preparation and execution.

Companies that have existing crisis plans are realizing the need to actively review these documents and engage their crisis response teams.

The surge in data breaches over the past decade, the devastation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the unknowns about the future generally are leaving companies with no other option than to make crisis preparation an ongoing investment.

LD: How did you come to the world of legal PR? JD: I began my career at a regional news wire service, where I earned my stripes early on as a graveyard reporter. I was regularly reporting on stories involving police and fire departments, the most reliable sources for news that breaks in the middle of the night. I rose through the ranks becoming an editor, before moving on to a daily regional newspa-

per, covering general news in a number of Silicon Valley cities.

My career as a journalist taught me how to ask tough questions, develop story ideas, juggle and prioritize multiple assignments, and meet deadlines. These are all skills that have been invaluable over the course of my career in PR. When I interview job candidates for our own agency, one of the first questions I ask is whether they have any journalism experience.

LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a communications professional?

JD: I try to be direct and transparent, and help my clients see the many different outcomes that can be generated by various communications decisions.

Together, we confirm their goals and I consult on which communications strategy will best help them achieve their goals. It should go without saying, but PR professionals need to be naturally curious and put their clients’ interests first.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside PR firm?

JD: Be responsive and keep your advisors apprised of your overall strategies whenever possible. We do a lot of work behind the scenes, and having insights into clients’ evolving goals is beneficial for both the advisor and firm.

LD: If you weren’t working in legal communications, what would you be doing?

JD: I’d like to say I’d be deep into my career as a starting pitcher for the San Francisco Giants. More realistically, I would have a different job in the communications industry that I find enjoyable, rewarding and challenging.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

115

100 FULL NAME Allan Ripp Jane Sullivan Roberts Gina Rubel

ORGANIZATION Ripp Media & Public Relations

Macrae Furia Rubel Communications

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

New York

Media & Communications

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Doylestown, Pa.

Public Relations

Gretta Rusanow

Citi Private Bank

New York

Financial Advisor

Joseph Ryan

Citi Private Bank

New York

Financial Advisor

George Sard

Sard Verbinnen & Co.

New York

Communications

Dawn Schneider

Schneider Group Media

New York

Media & Communications

Elonide Semmes

Right Hat

Chicago

Marketing & Communications

Anita Shapiro

PLI

New York

Continuing Legal Education

Michael Short

LawVision

Washington, D.C.

Legal Consulting

Martha Ann Sisson

Garrison & Sisson

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiting

Michael Sitrick

Sitrick

Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Nat Slavin

Wicker Park Group

Michael Talve

The Expert Institute

New York

Litigation Consultant

Jeffrey Taufield

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communications

Burton Taylor

Proventus Consulting

Kansas City, Mo.

Marketing & Communications

Mehrnaz Vahid

Citi Private Bank

New York

Financial Advisor

Tony Williams

Jomati Consultants

London

Management Consulting

Gulam Zade

LogicForce

Nashville

Technology Advisor

Kent Zimmermann

Zeughauser Group

Chicago

Management Consulting

116

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Newport Beach, Calif.

Management Consulting

100

TIM MALTIN

BY JOHN RYAN

AS LAWDRAGON EXPANDED OUR RESEARCH

on the best legal consultants past America’s borders, Tim Maltin quickly landed on the short-list for UKbased public relations advisors. Maltin PR has earned a stellar reputation in developing and managing communications strategies for law firms with a particular strength in handling PR tied to litigation. Maltin says that lawyers engaged in litigation can maximize the benefit of outside advisors by integrating them into the broader legal strategy to prevent the different components from falling into silos.

Lawdragon: What type of services does Maltin PR provide to clients?

Tim Maltin: My firm and I work across the legal industry, from solicitors, attorneys and barristers through to litigation funders and, ultimately, the individuals and corporates bringing proceedings. As well as our day-to-day PR support for law firms and other professional services providers, we specialize in providing litigation support on high-value, often multi-jurisdictional, civil commercial matters.

We regularly work with leading counsel to provide an integrated PR strategy that manages the reputational risks inherent in any litigation while also maximizing the impact of the client’s legal case in the media. The matters we handle vary in quantum, but invariably they have serious implications for the client which necessitates a careful and considered approach to the media that works to support their litigation strategy.

are as media friendly as possible while any media relations work fully supports the legal strategy.

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?

TM: The complexity of planning, preparing and implementing an effective litigation PR strategy has few parallels. While I began my PR career working generally with professional services firms, the challenging, fast moving and unique nature of each litigation ensures that each day presents both new challenges – and new opportunities.

TM: A major trend that has shifted the litigation landscape is the rise of litigation funders. While there were concerns that third-party funding would slow, recent results from publicly traded litigation funders have highlighted the sector’s resilience. Third-party funding enables parties to bring or fight cases that would otherwise be financially impossible for them, opening up potential for fascinating ‘David vs Goliath’ litigations. As well as single-claimant litigations, group actions have increasingly involved litigation funders who can provide seed capital to get the claim off the ground. Those funding group action claims are often keen to work with litigation PR firms who are well placed to assist in attracting claimants.

Working with lawyers is also very satisfying. Like PR professionals, they are highly experienced in distilling and finessing messaging for specific audiences.

A truly collaborative relationship with a legal client offers a chance to ensure that pleadings in each case

Naturally one of the other most impactful developments this year has been the Covid-19 pandemic, which has completely changed the playing field for litigation PR. Remote courts have made it easier than ever for journalists and interested members of

LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What do you like about working with lawyers?

PHOTO BY: MARTIN BEDDALL

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

117

100 the public to attend hearings, while making it more difficult for PR practitioners to ensure that they are fully briefed on the client’s narrative. Conversely, it provides expanded opportunities to cover the case for journalists that would otherwise not have the budget, flexibility or geographical proximity to be able to attend a traditional hearing.

Major international litigations continue to be filed, despite the wider economic slowdown, and a number of cases have emerged specifically due to the pandemic. Such cases are likely to become a feature of the litigation landscape.

LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as a “favorite” or one that is more memorable for certain reasons?

TM: One of the more memorable matters is our work for the Central Bank of Venezuela [BCV] in their litigation against the Bank of England [BoE].

The claim was launched over access to 31 tonnes of Venezuela’s gold stored at the BoE. The gold is valued at approximately €1.9B making it an important case in both quantum and political interest, given the international sanctions currently in place on Venezuela. There is a further humanitarian element to the case as the BCV is seeking to transfer the proceeds of selling the gold to the United Nations Development Programme to assist in Venezuela’s Covid-19 relief efforts.

Since the initial filing of the case in May 2020, representatives of the purported ‘ad hoc’ BCV Board joined the claim. This has resulted in the court hearing arguments around who the United Kingdom government recognizes as President of Venezuela: Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó. This is naturally a highly contentious topic and the original judgment of the High Court stating that only Mr. Guaidó was recognized was then overturned by the Court of Appeal. The latter found that both Mr. Maduro and Mr. Guaidó could simultaneously be recognized (in different ways) by the UK government, directing the case back to the High Court for further analysis.

The quantum, geopolitical dimension and humanitarian aspects have combined to draw interest from media across the globe. It has also made it a truly fascinating and memorable case to be involved with.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to best work with outside PR assistance?

118

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TM: In litigation it is vital that everybody on the team understands the strategy, so integrating your communications team with the wider legal team as soon as they are engaged is important. Equally, it is key to impress upon your lawyers that they must keep the PR team in the loop with developments.

If they are kept within their own silo, they will be unable to advise you optimally across all aspects of your communications, both inside and outside the courtroom.

A good PR team can also provide you with lateral strategic advice that may otherwise slip through the net. Lawyers will typically (and rightly) be focussed on the matter at hand, which can cause wider strategic concerns to be neglected. Your communications advisors will be able to take a more holistic view of wider concerns, reputational and strategic, that may emerge from the litigation. This is not to say that you should consider the opinion of your communications team more highly than your legal representatives – simply keep the two integrated to ensure that good ideas are not missed in the trenches of litigation.

LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities? Please tell us what you find meaningful about your time serving them.

TM: My firm has worked pro bono with Breast Cancer Now for over five years, supporting their Tour de Law initiative. Tour de Law is a charity initiative aimed at the UK’s legal sector, seeking to raise funds to enable Breast Cancer Now to continue to provide research, care and support to all those affected by breast cancer. Over £115,000 was raised last year from approximately 1,300 participants.

The event, which takes place for a week during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, has previously seen teams from law firms and barristers’ chambers across the UK compete on static bikes within their offices. Given the restrictions caused by Covid-19, this year participants were able to compete on whatever bikes they have easy access to.

As an initiative that both raises much-needed funds for a truly worthy cause while fostering team spirit, encouraging exercise and providing friendly competition, we are proud to be able to utilize our skills and network to support Tour de Law each year.

100

JON LINDSEY

BY ALISON PREECE

JON LINDSEY KNOWS LAWYERS. AS THE NEW

York founding partner of Major, Lindsey & Africa, the former federal prosecutor helped build the legal recruiting and consulting firm into the gold-star market leader that it is today. For the past several decades, Lindsey has counseled partners and senior government officials on the trajectory of their careers, always with a mind toward their personal and professional satisfaction. He is a trusted and wellliked advisor who has the ear of law firm leadership around the globe.

Lawdragon: How did you get started in the field?

Jon Lindsey: After graduating from Columbia Law School I clerked for the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, then practiced at Debevoise & Plimpton (where as a junior associate I somehow ended up trying two small cases in federal court – something that usually only happens in “The Good Wife”). As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, I tried a couple of dozen more cases and went on to serve as counsel to the New York City Planning Commission.

I’ve loved every job I ever had and have been fortunate to always be a part of elite organizations that had the highest standards and the brightest people.

But I realized after 15 years of practice that I needed to find a way to have a life of greater purpose, to help people while also supporting my family. I’ve often said that being a legal recruiter is to be in “the happiness business” because I only succeed if I can materially improve the lives of the very successful partners and senior government officials I work with and help make my clients stronger.

It has been one of the joys of my life to have helped build the firm from a handful of big firm refugees who could comfortably fit around my dining room table to a truly global organization with more than 200 professionals and an extraordinary team supporting them.

LD: Can you tell me why you love what you do?

JL: I love helping intelligent people make intelligent choices about critical steps in their careers. The partners I work with are incredibly successful and accomplished but they don’t spend all day every day talking to the chairs, managing partners and hiring partners of top firms, learning about each firm’s finances and culture, hiring processes, clients and

PHOTO BY: PETER VIDOR

conflicts, practice strengths and needs, management style, capital structure, retirement policies and so much more. Because I have spent decades doing just that, and forming relationships with the folks running those law firms, I can give objective, honest counsel to help those partners find the best platform where their odds of long-term success are greatest.

I also enjoy the intellectual aspects of legal recruiting, partner compensation, and law firm mergers.

Years ago, I co-authored a book entitled “Managing People in Today’s Law Firm,” with two professors of management – it was a fascinating exercise to think deeply about some of the issues impacting the world of elite law firms. I have also published four extensive reports on our groundbreaking 2020, 2014, 2006 and 1996 Lateral Partner Satisfaction Surveys. (One of my partners has outdone me by publishing five Partner Compensation Survey reports over the past decade.) While they are hugely time consuming, these studies are rewarding in that they allow us to analyze how to make more successful matches for greater long-term success. And I enjoy writing articles, sitting on panels and conducting webinars and the like on a wide range of topics.

LD: How would you describe your approach to your job?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

119

100 JL: I try to approach my profession with “the three I’s”: intelligence, integrity and intensity. I’ve been told that I have a reputation as a straight shooter who cuts square corners, which I find quite gratifying. I try very hard to be candid, to not simply tell people what they want to hear, and to approach every situation with long-term thinking. There are a few people in every profession who will shade things to gain some sort of short-term edge; ultimately it never works to their advantage. I often trot out my favorite Mark Twain quote: “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

I try to give candidates and clients the benefits of decades of experience helping partners transition between law firms and senior government lawyers returning to private practice.

Some people have referred to me as “the Dean of lateral partner recruiting,” and while I like to think they had James Dean in mind, I would settle for being thought of as Dean Smith – a wise coach who helps champions succeed – rather than Dean Jones, the hapless dad of Disney films.

I have been doing this long enough that I work largely with partners who have been referred to me by others I have worked with, either as a candidate or as a client, and it is important to me that I not let them down.

LD: What would you say is unique about MLA? JL: Major, Lindsey & Africa is by far the world’s largest legal recruiting firm – our New York office alone would be the second largest – but it is much more important to us that in every national and regional survey we are voted the best legal recruiter. Being in 29 cities around the world, and forming relationships and gathering intelligence on our clients’ offices in those cities, allows us to know our clients in a much deeper way than a Mom and Pop recruiting shop that knows only one limited aspect of a multi-office or multinational law firm. And because we have been in business for nearly four decades, we follow elite lawyers from the start of their careers, getting to know their strengths and weaknesses and what they need to be happy and prosper, their practice style and temperament – and can thus make the best match for them and our clients.

Major, Lindsey & Africa has benefitted from what sociologists call “accumulation of advantage,” AKA, “the rich get richer.” Because of the reputation for excellence that we have built over the decades, starting with Bob Major and the late Martha Fay (Marty) Africa, we have been able to attract stellar professionals to

120

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

our ranks including the long-time chair of Morrison & Foerster; successful partners from Cooley, Hogan, Shearman, Winston and many other firms; and the General Counsel of Cardinal Health (then the 12th largest company in the U.S.) who had just been voted one of the top Black lawyers in the nation.

Our recruiters know that nothing less than excellence and consummate professionalism will do, and our candidates and clients are the beneficiaries.

LD: What do you do for fun outside the office?

JL: My wife and daughter say that I am a kid at heart.

Over the years, I have taught hundreds of people to juggle – it is a wonderful stress reliever and, particularly for young people, can be a great confidence booster. I also love to fly two-string stunt kites on the beach, though I no longer do so competitively. And while I am not sure it always qualifies as fun, I serve as the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Saltaire on Fire Island, my childhood home.

LD: Can you tell us about some of your philanthropic activities that you find particularly meaningful?

JL: For many years, I have served on the Board of the George Jackson Academy, a need-blind, independent middle school for boys, and have taught an economic literacy and current events class one afternoon a week. Almost every student at GJA is a student of color; most are from low income families and all are on scholarship. I find it incredibly rewarding to support an institution that helps launch these young scholars toward future success – 100 percent of its alumni graduate from competitive high schools and 95 percent graduate from selective colleges and universities. To put that in context, the comparable figure for students in the bottom quartile of family income is roughly 16 percent.

I also serve on the Board of RIP Medical Debt, which buys up medical debt of low-income patients at a very steep discount and then forgives it. In just six years, it has abolished more than $2.5B in debt, relieving thousands of families of a crushing burden that ruins their credit rating, impedes their ability to rent a home, to get a car loan so they can get to work, to obtain a mortgage, and otherwise participate in the American dream. RIP’s latest effort is the Helping COVID Heroes Fund to lift the financial weight of medical debt on healthcare workers and emergency responders including nurses, home health aides, social workers, hospital technicians and others on the frontlines of the fight against coronavirus.

MANY STRIVE BUT FEW ACHIEVE

Todd Shadle 2x Inductee Donald E. Godwin Hall of Fame Lifetime Member

Bruce Bowman, Jr. 3x Inductee

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

Todd Shadle has been selected for his second time to The 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers

by Lawdragon.

Mr. Shadle has nearly 20 years of trial experience in complex commercial litigation matters and is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Donald E. Godwin has been on Lawdragon’s list of top lawyers every year since 2015 and this year was honored to be inducted to the Hall Of Fame as a lifetime member.

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,

For the third time, Bruce Bowman, Jr. has been selected to The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Mr. Bowman is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has handled numerous arbitrations, mediations and appeals through the Texas Supreme Court, Federal Appeals Courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

GODWINBOWMAN.COM | 214-939-4400 | DALLAS

500

Hall of Fame The 2020 inductions to the Lawdragon 500 Hall of Fame reflect the amazing breadth of legal talent we have recognized since founding Lawdragon fifteen years ago. This year, we add 41 lawyers to the permanent Hall of Fame, which we first assembled in 2015.

As in past years, the 2020 Hall of Fame class includes some of the nation’s most famous lawyers, including the likes of David Boies, Ted Wells and Ty Cobb. In addition to the most accomplished lawyers from the plaintiff and corporate ranks, we include public interest titans like Connie Rice, David Lash and Patti Goldman – and the incomparable leader from academia, Erwin Chemerinsky.

Given the increasing proportion of women on the Lawdragon 500 over the past several years – topping 40 percent this year – it is fitting that this year’s Hall of Fame class contains so many women who have possessed the strength, determination and power required to change the profession for better. Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School when she graced our 2005 Lawdragon 500, has waged this fight from the classroom to Congress to the political battlefield. And who better to represent this group than Anita Hill, the essence of strength and brilliance.

Both lawyers show how far the profession has come since we started in 2005, and how much work remains.

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

123

500

Rosemary Alito - K&L Gates The head of K&L Gates’ employment practice has long been one of the nation’s top lawyers for counseling employers and defending them against a wide range of claims from employees.

Clifford Aronson - Skadden Aronson has excelled for decades at assisting companies – Twenty-First Century Fox, ECM Corp., Citrix Systems, Jos A. Bank Clothiers among them – in ironing out the complex antitrust components of their M&As. Max Berger - Bernstein Litowitz Berger has handled many of the biggest securities class actions in history while building a national powerhouse that has achieved astonishing recoveries and corporate governance reforms of immeasurable impact.

Alexander “Zander” Blewett - Hoyt & Blewett Montana’s leading legal luminary, this lion of the trial bar has a long string of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements and earned his rightful place in The Inner Circle of Advocates.

David Boies - Boies Schiller The former Cravath partner turned litigation-boutique founder will forever be known as one of the greatest trial lawyers in American history with a mountain of high-profile wins to his name, including the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Paulette Brown - Locke Lord Among the most lauded employment lawyers of her generation, the first woman of color to head the ABA has guided a huge number of employers through their most vexing discrimination claims.

Erwin Chemerinsky - University of California, Berkeley, School of Law This beloved academic has made an indelible mark as a scholar through his prolific and approachable work in the area of constitutional law and also as a leader of law schools, both as UCal Irvine’s founding dean and now at Berkeley.

124

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Ty Cobb - Law Offices of Ty Cobb Cobb earned his stripes as a prosecutor then spent decades at Hogan Lovells handling his clients’ most complex and sensitive litigation before bringing the White House a dose of credibility and civility as special counsel during the Mueller probe.

Patrick Coughlin - Robbins Geller Few securities litigators in history have a track record like Coughlin’s, which boasts recoveries in Enron, against Apple, the Visa and Mastercard interchange fee litigation, and more recently in claims against Trump University.

Kathleen Fisher - Calvo Fisher The former MoFo litigation chief earned a reputation for excellence in handling the thorniest trusts-and-estates disputes along with a wide range of complex litigation both inside and outside the courtroom.

Thomas Fitzgerald - Winston & Strawn Fitzgerald is unquestionably one of the most successful large-firm chairmen of the past two decades, leading his Chicago-based firm to new locations around the world and bolstering the strengths of many practices.

Thomas Girardi - Girardi Keese The colorful fixture of Los Angeles’ wildly talented trial-lawyer world has too many multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements to count, alongside a like number of scene-stealing courtroom moments.

Donald Godwin - Godwin Bowman When the chips are down, companies know to call this admired veteran of the Texas trial bar for their most important litigation needs – as they have doing now for four decades.

Patti Goldman - Earthjustice Goldman has devoted her entire career to public interest work, first at Public Citizen Litigation Group and then at Earthjustice, where she has proven her talents both as a litigator and manager.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

125

500

Nina Gussack - Pepper Hamilton Pharmaceutical and medical device businesses have relied on Gussack to defend their biggest and most complex litigations, as well as their most sensitive investigations and regulatory matters.

James Harrington - Harrington & Mahoney Harrington has devoted the last decade of his stellar career in high-stakes criminal defense work to representing Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the accused 9/11 coconspirators, in the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal.

Richard Heimann - Lieff Cabraser The onetime public defender and prosecutor has had an epic career at Lieff Cabraser, where he oversaw the firm’s historic result in the tobacco litigation and dozens of high-profile cases that followed.

Lynne Hermle - Orrick This member the American College of Trial Lawyers has built a commanding presence in Silicon Valley and beyond as the defense lawyer of choice for discrimination and wage-and-hour battles.

Anita Hill - Cohen Milstein The unflappable Hill has remained a steady voice in the American legal profession that echoes louder each year through academic and private-practice contributions in the areas of civil rights, gender equality and workplace discrimination.

Cassandra Holleman - Harris County Judge A single mother while studying in law school, Holleman was an integral part of Harris County’s “Black Girl Magic” election of 17 judges before her untimely death of pancreatic cancer at the age of 57.

Jeffrey Kessler - Winston & Strawn Winston’s co-executive chairman is considered the nation’s leading lawyer in player-side sports and competition law, representing players associations in the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and many others.

126

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

David Lash - O’Melveny With decades of service, Lash has lived one of the industry’s most impressive public-interest careers with his leadership of Bet Tzedek followed by his management of O’Melveny’s pro bono practice.

Jane Michaels - Holland & Hart In the area of intellectual property law and litigation, Michaels has remained atop the list for counseling a wide range of companies on their IP needs and protecting their rights in court.

Wayne Outten - Outten & Golden The widely admired founding partner and longtime leader of the nation’s preeminent employee-side employment firm has set the standard for effective representation of high-level executives.

Lee Phillips - Manatt Tracy Chapman, Barbra Streisand, Prince, The Eagles and Brian Wilson are just a handful of the artists to rely on the advice of Phillips, who also represents recording and publishing companies.

Stacy Phillips - Blank Rome Highly sought-after by both high net-worth individuals embroiled in divorce proceedings and media companies seeking her commentary, Phillips has spent her career at the top of the family law practice.

John Quinn - Quinn Emanuel Never bring just a knife to a gun fight with this tough-as-nails litigator, whose legacy in court for his many clients is matched by his building and stewardship of one of the world’s best litigation shops.

Connie Rice - Advancement Project Rice’s achievements in the areas of civil rights litigation and police reform are of historic measure, both from her founding of the Advancement Project and her tireless work for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

127

500

Jonathan Schiller - Boies Schiller Always on the short-list for any high-profile antitrust dispute, Schiller negotiated a record $1B settlement in the Vitamins class action and successfully defended Barclays in the Libor litigation.

Roman Silberfeld - Robins Kaplan Robins Kaplan’s National Trial Chair and Los Angeles anchor has scored billions of dollars for plaintiffs through his leadership roles in massively complex cases across a variety of industries.

William Urquhart - Quinn Emanuel The legal world lost a true titan in 2019 with the passing of Urquhart, at age 72, following a long career of courtroom victories and working with partner-in-crime John Quinn to expand the firm’s success globally.

Christine Varney - Cravath The chair of one of the world’s best antitrust practices also has experience enhanced by a unique mix of government service, with stints as both an FTC Commissioner and the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust.

Leigh Walton - Bass Berry One of the brightest stars of the Nashville legal scene enjoys an unvarnished reputation in the areas of corporate governance and mergers and acquisitions, particularly within the healthcare industry.

Elizabeth Warren - U.S. Senate Being the best candidate doesn’t always guarantee victory, but Warren’s unwavering commitment to the issues of everyday Americans has left a permanent – and still expanding – legacy in consumer protection law.

Howard Weitzman - Kinsella Weitzman Too-many-to-list giants of the entertainment world, from studios and agencies to artists of all stripes, have relied on this icon’s prowess to handle their litigation concerns in both civil and criminal contexts.

128

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Theodore Wells - Paul Weiss The world’s biggest banks, pharmaceutical companies and sports leagues – along with high-profile individuals including Eliot Spitzer and Scooter Libby – have given the hugely admired Wells a client list like no other lawyer.

William Whelan - Cravath Whelan’s 35-year career with the incomparable New York institution exemplifies the type of steady excellence that has made the firm’s corporate practice the model to which other firms aspire.

Steven Yerrid - The Yerrid Firm The Tampa Bay Lightning’s “Punching Man” is one of the nation’s great heavyweights in court, with massive recoveries in Big Tobacco and Deepwater Horizon and for countless individual plaintiffs.

Lawrence Zweifach - Gibson Dunn One of the true bedrocks of Gibson Dunn’s outstanding litigation corps, Zweifach is a clear “bet-the-company” choice across antitrust, securities and all manner of civil and criminal white collar cases.

Margaret Zwisler - Latham Latham’s top-tier reputation in the area of antitrust law is owed in great part to the astonishing career of Zwisler, who retired in 2019 after four decades of excellence in the practice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

129

500

STEVE YERRID THE YEAR IS 1985. A YOUNG MAN GOES

to deposit money after hours in a trendy new Automated Teller Machine that is, for esthetics rather than safety, surrounded by dense, high hedges and streaked with deep shadows from dim mood lighting.

A surprise to no one reading this today: The man gets jumped by criminals hiding in the foliage and darkness, shot in the face and blinded in one eye.

A different time, indeed. The world had yet not felt the impact of Steve Yerrid.

The oversight of safety measures at an outdoor ATM seems absurd through today’s lens, when we’re all practiced in cupping our hands for cover as we punch in our pin numbers.

We sometimes forget. We forget that corporations too often look at safety protocols as expensive and low-priority – if they’re on the radar at all. We forget that governments are slow-moving and filled with politicians too often looking to advance their own careers rather than seeking to better society. We

130

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY ALISON PREECE

forget that lots of bad actors in both spheres will try to get away with whatever they can.

We forget why we need lawyers.

“You know that saying from Shakespeare that gets tossed around so much, ‘Kill all the lawyers’? Well, people forget the context of that quote,” says Yerrid, a legendary plaintiffs’ lawyer based in Tampa, Florida. “The full quote changes its meaning: ‘if you want tyrants to rule, first kill all the lawyers.’”

Yerrid exemplifies that better breed of lawyer, the one who genuinely wants to see the world get more fair, more reasonable – and works every day to effectuate that change.

Thanks to Yerrid, we can feel safer as we take money from ATMs. In what was reported to be the first sevenfigure verdict holding a bank liable for outdoor ATM security, the banking industry immediately began to change its emphasis from esthetics to safety by implementing measures such as brightly light ATMs, the removal of surrounding high bushes and foliage and, in many instances, the installation of security cameras.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

We can also cross bridges with peace of mind thanks to his work on the landmark Skyway Bridge case (recently made into a documentary, Skyway Bridge Disaster, and currently available for rent through Amazon Prime), which set a new standard for safety design, support pier protection, and better constructed bridges in this country, as well as around the world.

Through a game-changing medical malpractice case for Allan Navarro, who was sent home from the ER after his stroke was misdiagnosed as a nasal infection, Yerrid helped to improve the standard of care in emergency rooms. He secured a record-setting $217M jury verdict for his client, which is still the largest medical malpractice verdict in Florida’s history.

As a result of that case and others like it, virtually all patients entering an ER are seen by an M.D. and not just a physician assistant before getting a discharging diagnosis. (The Navarro case was the cover story of Lawdragon Magazine in 2007.)

Perhaps his greatest impact is seen (and smelled) in the lack of the once-ubiquitous cigarette smoke vanishing in today’s world. Yerrid was part of the “Dream Team,” as it became known: Hand-picked by Florida’s Governor, the late Lawton Chiles, this elite group of eleven private trial lawyers brought Big Tobacco to its knees back in the ‘90s. The youngest member of the team, Yerrid was responsible for bringing the civil RICO claims against the cigarette companies. At the time, it was a novel use of a statute that was originally designed to combat the mafia.

He literally “bet” everything he had to hold the allpowerful industry responsible for the colossal harm and millions of deaths they had caused generations of Americans.

And he was just getting started.

Yerrid is approaching a head-spinning 300 verdicts and settlements of a million dollars or more – including a recent jury verdict of $64M – and currently, is among the lawyers representing victims in the tragic Las Vegas shooting that resulted in an $800M settlement with MGM. But he doesn’t define success by sheer numbers (impressive as they may be). For Yerrid, the true mark of a successful lawyer is making every effort to cause positive change directed towards safeguarding people and further protecting our citizenry.

“When I have a client or a cause that may either prevent the same type of catastrophe or loss in the future, or has the potential to promote societal change in a beneficial way – for me, that’s what it’s all about. It is

a goal I’ve always sought to achieve. Cases that not only have meaning to the clients, but also serve as catalysts for remediation and positive change to occur.”

Yerrid, a graduate of Georgetown Law, was recently inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. He is also a member the National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame, and several others. He is one of the original founders of The American Museum of Torts located in Connecticut.

He is a long-time member of the prestigious Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only organization that has often been recognized as consisting of the top 100 plaintiffs’ lawyers in the country. Throughout his career, he has received numerous other recognitions and honors by a multitude of legal organizations regarding his accomplishments both in and out of the courtroom.

Lawdragon: How did you first know that you wanted to be a lawyer, Steve?

Steve Yerrid: My mother raised me as a single parent from age seven throughout the rest of my young childhood and teenage years. She was a wonderful lady, and to this day, my all-time hero in life. Living on her secretary’s salary, we did not have much money, but we were rich in many other ways. I learned firsthand what a beautiful single mother’s sacrifices for a son were, because my mother made those sacrifices for me. She gave me valuable treasures of life that I still hold precious. There was a seed planted in me when I was a very young person – that there’s a certain, I don’t want to say obligation, but it’s almost a calling, to help others. To help people who are less fortunate and more vulnerable to the hardships of life, is tremendously satisfying.

LD: What was your experience like going to Georgetown Law School, in the heart of D.C.?

SY: Fascinating. I was able to attend much of the Watergate hearings that resulted in President Nixon resigning from office. I used to spend as much time as I could between classes and working in the Senate to sit in on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I was always amazed I could actually watch the highest court in the land and see legal history being made. Carved in stone above its entrance are four words I’ll never forget: “Equal Justice Under Law.” Those four words apply not only to minority rights, different religions, different genders, the gay community, and others who too often face denial of equal protection; those four words should apply to every human being living in our great democracy. It rings true in terms of people addressing wrongdoing, it rings true in terms of minority rights, which we’ve

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

131

500 seen horrifically violated just recently on a video that would make any normal person sick to watch. Regardless of political persuasion or color of skin, the idea of equality needs to come to the forefront. It is our commonality as human beings and our shared belief in a guiding principle that each and every person is entitled to fair and just treatment.

LD: You had a big win early on in your career with the Skyway Bridge case. When you look at the world today, it’s really difficult to imagine a time when the safety of our bridges was so much in question.

SY: No one thought I would win that case except maybe my mom, and I think even she had her doubts.

I was a very young lawyer, and I decided to use an “Act of God” defense to the charges against Capt.

John Lerro, meaning nothing humanly possible could have been done to change the course of events or the outcome that occurred. I did not have a whole lot of options. I mean, most people readily assume that bridges don’t jump in front of ships. it was an extremely difficult case particularly because 35 innocent people had died, and virtually everyone was looking for a scapegoat. Despite the disaster and how easily this poorly constructed, unprotected bridge collapsed, the State of Florida wanted to rebuild the bridge as it was, as if nothing happened.

It was cheaper, easier, and less time consuming to simply repair and rebuild the damaged bridge. But to do that was also very unsafe. We strongly opposed this approach and, thankfully, were joined by many others in insisting that out of that tragedy would be born real change. This was the early ‘80s, and unsafe, unprotected bridges were commonplace.

We urged that a new Skyway Bridge be built, designed with an emphasis on real protections for the bridge structure, not only for the welfare of mariners, but also for those in the vehicles that traveled across the span above the water’s surface. We wanted a new bridge that could withstand the worst of weather conditions and still allow safe travel. As a result, under the leadership of Governor Bob Graham, his successor, Governor Bob Martinez, and with the support of many concerned citizens, the old bridges were both replaced. Finally, in 1987, a spectacular and very safe $200M bridge that closely resembles a smaller version of the Golden Gate in San Francisco, was built. The template of the new Sunshine Skyway has since been used to build hundreds of safer and better protected bridges throughout the United States, and in other parts of the world, as well.

It began a sea change, if you will, in the maritime 132

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

construction of protected bridges that prioritize safety rather than cost.

LD: Did you have any sense of how broad an impact this case would have on bridge safety when you were trying it?

SY: I can’t say that I did. I was 30 years old when I tried that case. I was totally immersed in defending Capt.

Lerro. Frankly, at the time, I don’t think I realized the case was being tried on a world stage. I had friends from law school calling me from around the world, because a lot of them were in the foreign service and stationed in distant embassies, saying, “Hey, I saw you on CNN. You had a two-and-a-half minute spot.”

That spot was on like five rotating news cycles in one 24-hour period. That’s a lot of air-time and I did not fully appreciate its impact. However, I vividly recall that during the trial, I was receiving death threats, from people who thought I was on the wrong side of things and represented a “murderer,” at least according to some of the threats I received.

LD: Death threats will make you think twice…

SY: I did a lot more than think twice. But I kept remembering that old saying, a coward dies a thousand times, but a brave person dies just once. I wasn’t a brave person, but I’m not a coward, either. Still, I was plenty concerned ….

I just didn’t realize it was such a big case. If I had more fully appreciated its magnitude or the widespread publicity it was generating, perhaps I would have acted differently. But I put everything I had into that case, personally, emotionally, and otherwise. I really believed in the client and always felt we had a chance to win.

LD: Is that important to which cases you take on?

Believing in the case, the client?

SY: Absolutely. I’ve always tried to use that criteria in accepting any case. I don’t think I can effectively represent a client until I walk in their shoes and believe in their cause. I need to connect with a client, feel their pain, feel their loss, and believe it is a cause that should prevail, because too often in our society, that just doesn’t happen.

A few years back, I wrote a book titled When Justice Prevails, about eight cases I had taken to trial.

The publisher in New York had wanted me to title it, Justice Prevails, but I resisted. I recall saying to her, “You’ve got to put the word ‘When’ before the ‘Justice Prevails.’” This publisher was a wonderful lady, and she said, “What do you mean?” I explained that, too many times, the win goes to the powerful and

500 YOU DON’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY TAKING BAD CASES TO TRIAL, OR BY TAKING BAD CLIENTS THAT ARE UNDESERVING TO TRIAL. YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY TAKING ON GOOD CAUSES THAT SHOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND REPRESENTING GOOD PEOPLE WHO DESERVE JUSTICE. YOU TAKE THOSE PEOPLE AND THOSE CASES TO TRIAL, AND MOST OFTEN, OUR SYSTEM CAN DELIVER JUSTICE. the rich. Their money and station in life can make a difference in the outcome. Those most vulnerable – children, seniors, minorities – just don’t have the same ability to obtain “equal” justice. It is simply not a level playing field, and our system of justice doesn’t always work for those people who most deserve it.

We have a long history of injustice in this country.

Seeking justice doesn’t always mean getting it. There is a constant struggle to get the “rightful” outcome.

LD: You seem to be a person who takes on a battle that then turns out to be a war. I have a vague recollection of people smoking inside restaurants when I was young, but it’s really hard to wrap my head around how different the world looked before you and Florida’s Dream Team aimed your slingshot at Big Tobacco.

SY: That was a case that logic and reason would tell me I should never have become involved in.

LD: The odds were against you, to put it lightly.

SY: It was the mid-‘90s, and since the early 1950s, Big Tobacco had not lost a case. The cigarette cartel had never paid a dime for the horrific damage and deaths it caused over all those many years. We were taking on an unbeaten foe, with billions of dollars’ worth of power, and represented by the best law firms money could buy. The cigarette cartel also had an ability to put on massive advertising and public relations campaigns and wage war on their own favorable terms in the court of public opinion.

I vividly recall traveling to L.A. and taking the deposition of the top advertising executive for the cigarette industry. I learned Big Tobacco spent $2B a year just in advertising. Then through our litigation, we uncovered the “smoking gun” documents that revealed, in shocking detail, evidence of outright lies and how the industry had targeted our youth for decades. I understood the frightening effectiveness of that approach because children 12 and 13 simply

do not know how to make adult decisions. Then, once such an immature decision to smoke is made, these young people become physically hooked on a very highly addictive substance like nicotine, and what happens? They lose their ability to choose as they grow, because addicts don’t have a choice.

In effect, Big Tobacco was creating a population of new consumers to replace the 400,000 people dying every year, by using a legal product, which, if taken as directed, causes sickness and death.

Both my mother and my father died prematurely of smoking-related illnesses. My dad got hooked during World War II. Lucky Strike cigarettes were actually included in his rations, when he was fighting for our country in the Pacific Theater.

So I had both a personal agenda as well as a societal one. But as a trial lawyer, it would have taken some borderline insanity to take that case on. Still, it took me all of five seconds to commit to being on the team, even knowing the odds were almost impossible. Of course, I needed the right mental approach.

I recall a story told to me that exemplifies that type of attitude. Fate whispered to the warrior, “You cannot withstand the storm.” The warrior whispered back, “I am the storm.”

I was 45 years old, and I had been blessed with a remarkably successful career up to that point. Financially, I was very well off - better than I ever thought I would have been in my lifetime. But I virtually invested all of those things that I had obtained back into this case, and then some. By the time we were doing jury selection at the trial, I had no resources or assets left except the home I lived in.

LD: No pressure…

SY: It got worse. The bank had already loaned me several million dollars, but as we approached trial after several years of protracted litigation, I needed more money. I had already pledged all the firm’s

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

133

500 assets, sold off my stock and whatever else I could liquidate, but I still needed to get another $600,000 to get me through the trial. But the bank wanted more collateral. I said, “I’ve given you all the collateral I have.” When it became clear the bank was not going to give me the loan, I pleaded with the loan officers, “I’m just talking about a transitional loan. Six to eight weeks. Just let me get through this trial.”

we met for a dinner conference back at our hotel in Palm Beach. I said to Lawton Chiles, “Governor, they offered four billion dollars today.” He thought about it before replying. Attorney General Bob Butterworth was there. The Solicitor General was there.

There were about four or five other team members there, sitting around a circular dinner table. Lawton asked, “What do you think?”

Their response? “We’ll think about it.” I said, “Think about this,” and put the deed to my house on the conference room table. I thought it was worth betting my own home on this case. I was desperately trying to keep the firm afloat, keep my personal life afloat, and stay in the war.

I will always believe he was looking my way when he asked the question, but sitting right next to me was Bob Montgomery, who was the trial team leader and our “first chair.” Before I could say a word, Bob answered loudly, “Turn it down Governor, we can get more.”

On Tuesday during the third week of jury selection, we were approached by the defense team and told Big Tobacco wanted to make an offer.

Being the low man of the three lawyers picking the jury, while we were in the courtroom I was assigned the task of dealing with settlement offers, something none of us were taking seriously. In any event, within a short time, the defense lawyer said “we will pay $4 million to settle the case” . . . at least that’s what I thought he said. I went off on him. “Are you crazy?

That kind of offer after all we’ve done in all these years of litigation, and the millions of documents and the hundreds of depositions? You offer that kind of money? That’s an insult!”

The lawyer, who was actually a very good person, looked stunned. He seemed to struggle before replying, “Well, I really don’t know how you call 4 billion dollars an insult.”

Now I need to back up and tell you that I had represented Van Halen back in the ‘80s when they did a Florida tour. During a practice session, I stood too close to one of those giant speakers and blew out my right eardrum. My hearing has not been good since. I had heard “million” but that “m” was actually a “b.” He had said $4 billion.

Finally realizing what had been said, I tried my best to recover without appearing to be a total buffoon.

“Well, I’m not saying four billion is chump change.

All I’m saying is under the circumstances and at this late stage, it’s kind of insulting.”

LD: Oh my gosh!! I would not have been able to keep my cool.

SY: I wasn’t being cool, I was numb. I remember what I was thinking inside: “Sweet Jesus, the cigarette industry has never offered or paid a dime and they just offered us four billion dollars.” That evening 134

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Bob was like my big brother and one of the best lawyers I have ever known. He was also one of my closest friends until the day he died. I truly admired and loved him. Still, I almost lost my dinner on the nice white tablecloth when those words came out.

But what was I supposed to say? I was next. “What do you think, Steve?” I swallowed hard but what in the hell could I say? Finally, I got the words out. “Well. . . I agree with Bob.” That night, I did not even come close to sleeping.

Not a wink. I was so nervous my guts were churning and upside down. Everything I had was on the line. I kept thinking over and over, “After all the years and spent money we were almost down to eating our horses and we just turned down billions.”

The next morning I came in just before the trial resumed. The defense lawyer came up to me and quickly said, “Mr. Moss,” who was the lead attorney on the defense team, “wants to know what to tell our clients.” I said, “Tell him we turn it down.” He looked almost as stunned as I had the day before. “What’s the counter-offer?” was his reply. I said, “There is none.” My stomach was now in my throat.

We got back from lunch and sat at counsel table waiting for the judge to enter and the trial to resume. The same lawyer comes over to me and says, “5 billion.” In that instant, every muscle in my body relaxed. All that pressure evaporated because turning down $4 billion no longer mattered. Right then I knew things were going to go the right way. We turned that offer down as well.

The next day, it was 6 billion, then seven, then eight.

Then, the end of the week came, and Joe Rice, the real negotiator on our team, worked his magic. By Sunday night, Joe had the offer close to $12 billion.

We took it! Additionally, we ended up also getting Big Tobacco to pay our attorneys’ fees, which were in the billions as well.

500

LD: That’s incredible.

SY: More important than the money, of course, were all the changes that were put in place. Joe Camel was eliminated, the Marlboro men were retired, the Virginia Slim girls were gone. Billboards and vending machines were removed from around the country, sponsorship of sporting events was over, advertising to children was prohibited. Joe also got an MFN, or Most Favored Nation clause, in the final settlement agreement. That meant, whatever our deal was, if Big Tobacco subsequently settled with any other state, that state also got the benefit of all of our non-monetary concessions and unprecedented restrictions on cigarette advertising.

LD: Florida started the Truth Campaign through that settlement, correct?

SY: That’s right, under our settlement the cigarette cartel was required to pay for the Truth Campaign and establish a “model” youth tobacco prevention program that ultimately was put in place nationwide.

It was, and still is, a massive effort designed to alert our young people to the dangers of a horrific addiction before they ever get hooked.

LD: This is the type of generational impact that, if you didn’t live in the world before this change occurred, it’s genuinely difficult to imagine it, because it seems so foreign. It seems like make-believe that people used to smoke on airplanes, for example.

SY: Airplanes, buses, trains, restaurants, bars, office buildings, public facilities. It was a different world.

These days, even outside areas are getting cleaned up, with smoke-free zones in parks and recreational areas becoming the norm, at least in our country. Smoking rates have plunged and I’m extremely grateful to know that I had a small part in all of that.

LD: Worth betting the deed to your house on it, then?

SY: Without a doubt. It changed my life and the lives of many others. I believe a basic fundamental secret about success in representing any client, is to expend the time and effort that are required in each and every case. You have to give your all and your very best effort and then reach down even further and give more. Regardless of what type of case that is being tried, that’s a constant truth I’ve done my best to live by.

You don’t make a difference by taking bad cases to trial, or by taking bad clients that are undeserving to trial. You make a difference by taking on good causes that should be the law of the land, and representing good people who deserve justice. You take those

people and those cases to trial, and most often, our system can deliver justice.

LD: You were also appointed Special Counsel to the Governor of Florida in the aftermath of the BP oil spill. Can you tell us a bit about that?

SY: I was really offended and angry by what happened. I love nature, particularly our oceans. I probably spend more time these days on the water than I spend on land. Every time I saw the video footage of that oil plume pouring into the pristine Gulf of Mexico, I became more and more angry. I wanted to do something about it and being appointed Special Counsel gave me that opportunity. I was honored to do the job for my fellow Floridians pro bono. I was fortunate to travel to Washington for the initial Senate Committee hearings on the horrific catastrophe and the questioning of the CEOs responsible for the environmental tragedy and work on the case for the rest of that long year.

It was not easy, but ultimately BP and Halliburton accepted responsibility and paid billions in reparations.

Subsequently, I was asked to represent the City of Tampa by its outstanding Mayor Bob Buckhorn. That was the only private case I took regarding the spill. I wanted to do that because I love my city, and I love the people in it. I was truly honored to help. Ultimately, we were paid $27M by BP, the largest settlement obtained by any city in the country.

LD: What were some of the challenges you faced there?

SY: Well, we didn’t have a drop of oil on any of Tampa Bay’s beaches for one. I had to overcome that undisputed fact before we could even get to first base. Fortunately, I was able to work with the University of South Florida and their talented scientists and experts. On the bottom of the Gulf, just off the Tampa Bay coast, we found “DNA” evidence of the exact contaminant that had been used by BP as a dispersant to sink the oil off of the water’s surface right after the spill. Kind of out of sight out of mind, BP wanted to sink that miles-wide slick of oil to the bottom of our Gulf of Mexico. Ultimately, BP was finally convinced that the better course of action would be to settle the case.

As a result, Mayor Buckhorn fulfilled his promise that any money recovered from BP would be used to directly help and better provide our communities with cultural and recreational resources. Money was put into public works, things that make a difference in the lives of many people. For children who can’t

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

135

500 afford swimming pools, or playgrounds, the city started putting in more public pools, better parks, amusement facilities, things like that, especially in underserved areas.

LD: What an excellent use of that money.

SY: That was the mayor’s vision and true to his word, that is exactly how he used Tampa’s settlement. From those types of tragic cases, we should figure out that the next generation doesn’t deserve to pay the huge price for our mistakes. We’ve got to work and act not just for ourselves but for those who follow us. That includes global warming, pollution of our air, our seas and in general, the poisoning of our planet. To me, the oceans are the lifeblood of our world, and their waters have been exploited and violated beyond belief. I care deeply about these issues. I was able to kick into another gear because I believe so strongly in doing something about it.

LD: What cases are keeping you busy these days?

SY: We are just finishing a case involving the Las Vegas shooting. We represent a husband and wife, both L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, who were on vacation and attending the concert when the mass shooting started. Recognizing the noise as gunshots rather than fireworks, each helped get people to safety before she was severely wounded. Fortunately, both survived. All of these cases brought by the survivors, as well as the decedents’ representatives, recently settled for $800M. That settlement is being implemented as we speak.

A big focus of mine concerns the safety and welfare of student athletes. Three out of four of my last student-athlete cases were wrongful death actions.

The one young man who survived, suffered some brain injury, but was fortunate enough to keep his life. The other three, all young African American men, paid the ultimate price. They died.

LD: From brain injuries?

SY: No. The high school student that lived, Sean McNamee, was the only one who had a brain injury. He suffered a very bad skull fracture at a football practice when he struck his head on a piece of mechanical equipment that had been wrongfully left on the field.

Working with the local school board, we were able to establish and implement protocols for head injuries, concussions or suspected brain injuries, for student athletes. Fortunately, we got Hillsborough County to step up in that case. I believe it’s the only one of 67 counties in Florida to put in place a million dollars of coverage instead of taking refuge under the statu136

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

tory sovereign immunity cap that limits any and all damages to $300,000. The school board also agreed to support the passage of a special “claims bill” into Florida law, and we ultimately recovered more than $2M for Sean. That was four years ago. In addition to the monetary settlement, extensive protocols patterned after NFL and college programs were implemented. Named after Sean, the “McNamee Protocols” have already demonstrated remarkable effectiveness and, as a result, we have not had any significant head injuries since.

Another football player, an outstanding college student athlete and academic student named Ted Agu, was not as fortunate. He died an unnecessary and tragic death when his sickle cell trait activated due to an excessively hard conditioning drill. I asked Brian Panish, a close friend and an outstanding trial lawyer who practices in L.A., to work the case with me. Together, we sued University of California at Berkeley. We settled that case, as well. A comprehensive protocol specifically designed to safeguard the welfare of sickle cell trait athletes was put into place at all 11 University of California campuses. It is known as the “Agu Protocol.” In addition, Cal paid his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Agu, $4.75M in damages.

Fortunately, the University of California elected to do the right thing.

Our first student athlete case was a few years back.

It involved the death of a 19-year-old student athlete named Ereck Plancher. He was an outstanding student and a wide receiver for University of Central Florida [UCF]. At an unreasonably harsh football “conditioning drill,” he suffered a long and painful death as his sickle cell trait [SCT] activated and his organs slowly shut down. The real tragic part of that case was that Ereck had the SCT and the coaches knew it but still afforded him no appropriate treatment during the entire session as he struggled for his life. After a 3-week trial in Orlando, we obtained a $10M jury verdict against the University of Central Florida Athletic Association [UCFAA]. After the trial was over, UCFAA hid behind the protection of sovereign immunity and asserted the $10M jury verdict was only worth $300,000 because that’s all the Florida law would allow us to collect against the sovereign. Frankly, the conduct of UCF - one of Florida’s public colleges and the second-largest university in the county - was disgraceful from start to finish. UCF argued that its private football entity was simply part of the sovereign’s “public college,” which I still to this day don’t agree with. But that’s what the Florida Supreme Court ultimately held. Their

500

private corporate entity, UCFAA, that UCF formed so they could do things that the public entity could not, was still a part of it all and sovereign immunity was applied. As a result, the jury’s verdict was rendered almost meaningless. Ultimately, we settled the case just before Ereck’s father passed away from cancer.

Our most recent case earlier this year involved the death of Hezekiah Walters, a 14-year-old high school student. A young man with no previous football experience, Heze wanted to be a football player just like his dad. Heze was in his second conditioning practice and quite literally, was run to death.

With Hezekiah’s death, we didn’t have to struggle against sovereign immunity anymore, by virtue of the work we did in the McNamee case and the $1M liability coverage the Hillsborough County School Board had previously put into place because of Sean’s case several years before. Additionally, the “Hezekiah Walter’s Protocols” have been implemented, and now provide very extensive preventative procedures that cover both heat and cardiac scenarios.

Because of our work in this area, we were able to not only effectuate change, but within a relatively short period of time from the McNamee case, we were able to benefit from the changes made as a direct result of that prior case. Now, hopefully, because of Heze’s case, heat stroke and cardiac events will also become nonexistent or, at least, very few in number because of the protocols being utilized. In other words, we’re putting in proactive measures versus reactive measures and we are confident that approach will save lives.

LD: That’s what real change is made of. It’s incredible how large the impact of some of your cases has been.

At this point in your career, with the track record you have, you must get approached an incredible amount.

How do you decide which cases to take on? Do you go for the ones that will have the widest impact?

SY: I don’t just limit our firm’s cases to those that are impactful to broader societal issues. I’m still selective, but I am also moved by matters of the heart.

Sometimes massive change can occur within the world of one individual family. If I see a family that’s wrongfully lost their patriarch, matriarch, or worst of all, parents who have lost a child, I may take that case on. Even though it may concern only that one family, it affects them in a life-changing way. To me, there’s no worse human emotion, nothing more unnatural, than parents burying their own child. It’s the most horrific experience I have ever seen in my career. Helping that family actually is societal change

because it impacts this family’s role in society itself.

Of course, it also changes me forever, each time I can get justice for a family that has experienced tragic loss as a result of wrongdoing.

Every member of our firm is dedicated to that approach, that same concept. We don’t have a large volume of cases. We purposely have a very limited number of clients because we want clients to know us and we want to really know each of them. When people call, we want to know their faces. We want to know their story. They’re not just a file number.

They’re people we care about. That makes a huge difference, not only at our end, but at the other end as well because we make sure each client knows that they’re as important to us as anyone else we represent, whether it’s a CEO or a blue collar worker.

We’ve represented some very high-profile people, and others who were at the other end of the spectrum.

“Equal Justice Under Law” is something we not only honor, we live by it.

LD: Everyone at your firm has their heart in the work.

SY: They have their hearts, skills, and their best efforts invested in not only the clients, but in the cause as well. People know we don’t shy away from a gun fight. We don’t care who or how many are swinging guns on the other side.

LD: Is it a tight-knit group?

SY: Very much so. Our firm is best described as a professional family. That says it all. We try to treat our lawyers, our staff, our clerks, and our runners, virtually everyone, in the same exact fashion as we want to be treated by a family member: with compassion, with understanding, and with respect. If someone tells me they’ve got to have time off, I don’t have to worry about trusting whether their reason is justified.

I know and I don’t have to ask. That level of trust is reciprocal. When I ask somebody to do something, there’s no question that it’s going to get done, and get done right.

That level of trust, that level of caring, not just for clients, but for each other, allows us to operate as a true boutique trial firm. When we take on a case, we may only have six trial lawyers in the firm, but every lawyer and staff member in our office is in support of that particular case no matter which lawyer is involved. We can take on the biggest corporations employing the largest of law firms and still not be at a disadvantage, at least in my mind, because we have some very skilled, well-trained, extremely motivated trial lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, and staff. All of

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

137

500 them know what war is like in a courtroom because we have been to war a lot. Even the largest of firms have surprisingly few of those I would consider to be real courtroom lawyers.

you believe in something. When life knocks you down, always get up and keep fighting. Never stay down and never give up.” He ingrained that attitude deep into my being.

LD: Has it been a difficult transition to work remotely during the pandemic?

As a young man, I used that approach in the boxing ring and later transposed it into the practice of law, as well. Fight with everything you have in you for what’s right. If you do that, and you come up empty or short, it’s just an interim situation. Keep getting up, and ultimately one day you won’t get knocked down. Knocked down six times, get up seven. That’s what I was taught, and it has served me well.

SY: Yes, it has been both challenging and very different. But there really isn’t a choice. We were one of the first firms to go to virtual operations and put our people in safe places. Keeping everyone healthy is our top priority during this pandemic.

LD: Is retirement on your radar? Is it something you think about?

SY: Absolutely. I think about other people who have retired from this great life that I enjoy, and I feel sorry for them.

LD: Ah! So you’re not slowing down.

SY: I still feel I am in my prime. When, and only when, I believe clients are no longer getting my best — that is the only scenario under which I would consider retirement. Frankly, if I came back and got a second chance with another life, I’d want to come back as a trial lawyer. I have found it to be the most effective way to help others that I can imagine. To me, trial lawyers are a special breed. Jury trial lawyers are able to do things in our democracy that the government hasn’t been able to do, and politicians won’t do. Bad bridges were being built, cigarette cartels were running rampant. It is often the trial lawyers that make our world better and safer. Lawyers put air bags in vehicles, as well as seatbelts, and truthful warning labels on consumer products. Lawyers caught and stopped exploding gas tanks in cars, like the Ford Pinto. The list of the great things trial lawyers have done is endless.

Trial lawyers are my heroes. They were my heroes long before I ever became one.

LD: You talked about the influence your mom had on your chosen profession. Can we chat about your dad a bit? He had an interesting background, from what I understand.

SY: My dad had been an undefeated heavyweight boxer when he was stationed in the Pacific during World War II. He taught me to box at a very young age. Taught me how to fight for things in a lot of ways actually. He also taught me something else that was very important. When I was quite young, he said to me: “No matter the odds, no matter the outcome, you need to fight with all your might when 138

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I’ve been fortunate not to lose a lot of cases, but I certainly know the taste of defeat. I have found that I’ve actually learned more from the losses than the wins. I also learned that I really can’t accept loss. I just can’t. I don’t have that DNA. I want to win for my clients as much as I want my next breath, and I can tolerate the loss only if I can truthfully say that, “I gave it everything I had and I could not have tried harder.” True in the ring, the courtroom, and in life.

LD: Hang on, back up. You had a boxing career, too?

Did that coincide with your legal career, or…

SY: No, no, no. That was all when I was young and I really enjoyed being an amateur boxer. I was 17-0, but the 17th fight was not pretty and I almost got destroyed. I won because of a lucky punch. I looked in the mirror after that fight and realized it was time to quit, and try to keep whatever looks I had. So at the ripe age of 18 years old, I retired.

LD: Do you miss the sport at all?

SY: I still work out some and do a little sparring, but now fight in a different way. In 2000, George Steinbrenner, a close friend and someone I greatly admired, allowed me to co-chair the Olympic boxing qualifiers in Tampa. Since then, I’ve been helping brain-damaged boxers. I also promoted a couple of world championship fights that were televised internationally on HBO, and gave my promoter’s fee to charity. Muhammad Ali’s doctor, Ferdie Pacheco, became a good personal friend, and so did Ali’s long-time trainer, Angelo Dundee. Because of the various ways I had been involved in the boxing world, they were kind enough to nominate me for induction into the Florida Boxing Hall of Fame, and I was fortunate to be elected back in 2011.

LD: Very cool! Your dad would be so proud. And I know that Gable, the older of your two sons, has followed in your legal footsteps and is now working alongside you at the firm. Does your younger son

500

have any aspirations towards the law?

Then he said, “I was in New York to bury my last son.”

SY: I really don’t know. That will be his decision. Right now, my son Mason is in high school and almost 17 years old. I am slightly biased but he is super smart and loves the world of modern technology. He has a true talent when it comes to computers and is a software and programming whiz. Mason is extremely proficient in that emerging new world and incredibly literate in it. Recently, he built his own computer and continues to amaze me with his skills.

I stuttered, “What do you mean your last son? Was it some kind of accident? Health problem?” He replied, “No, he lived to a very good old age. He was 77.”

LD: Wow. SY: Yes, recently I asked him if he wanted to be a lawyer, and he said, “No, Dad, I love what I’m doing.”

Maybe he’s already found his niche, because he’s got a unique skill set but who knows? I am confident he will find success and happiness in whatever path he chooses. Most important, he also has a great heart.

LD: How did Gable come to the law?

SY: He had a horrific car accident when he was 16.

He learned a lot, and grew a lot from that tragic event. His life was spared; the other person wasn’t as fortunate. He’s seen death up close and personal and it had a profound effect on him. He learned the value of giving back, and it’s been a focus of his life ever since. I could not be more proud of him or love both my sons more.

LD: If you had to sum up your philosophy or approach to the work, or more broadly to life, what would that sound like?

SY: Are you asking me the secret to life? I’ll tell you what was once told to me.

LD: Tell me! I’m ready.

SY: The first secret was given to me by an old man on a plane many years ago.

At that time I was spiritually lost and looking for direction. I had just won another big case and had gone to New York and partied through a wild weekend.

I was flying back home, not in the mood to talk to anybody. This old man sat down next to me. I thought he was about 60, maybe 70 years old.

He was determined to strike up a conversation. “What brought you to New York?” he asked. I really didn’t want to talk to him, but I had no choice. “Oh, I just won a big case and I was in the Big Apple letting off steam, and having a good time. What brought you to New York, sir?”

“You don’t need to call me sir. My name is Stephanos,” (which is Greek for Steven, which I thought was ironic).

I said, “Excuse me?” He politely repeated, “He was 77.” I said, “May I ask how old you are?” He said, “I’ll be a hundred, next month.”

LD: Oh wow!

SY: It was hard to grasp. I said, “You’ve lived through the Wright Brothers, World War I, Babe Ruth, Lindbergh, World War II, Sputnik, a man in space and then on the moon. You’ve lived through an incredible span of life. If you had to impart one lesson, one only, to someone who was maybe lost and trying hard to find the way home, what would you tell them?”

The old man gave me what I’m going to give you. He didn’t hesitate. He said, “That’s easy, Steve. You look for the good in people, and the good in things. If you look hard enough, you’ll rarely be disappointed.”

I have tried to live by that approach. It has been proven true time and time again.

The second lesson I’ve learned by simply living life is “Giving is better than getting.” That’s it. You could put that on my tombstone, “He tried as hard as he could, looked for the best in things and people. He learned that living life to the fullest was about giving rather than getting.” To me, that would summarize a life well-lived.

LD: I would argue that we might want to mention some of the ways you’ve made a profound difference in the lives of individuals and families, and saved countless lives by shoring up safety procedures across a variety of industries….

SY: All right, ok, you can add an asterisk: “Some people thought he made a difference.” But I want to make it clear: I have never really had success without the help of others.

In fact, I have rarely done much of anything good without the help of others. However, when I failed, I could look around and see that I was able to fail all by myself. I learned early on that to call upon others is not a weakness, it’s a strength. Fortunately, many of the people that came into my life from the beginning, up until today, have been those who are willing to help and inspire me to be a better person. I believe we must always seek to better ourselves as well as others. To make a difference in life in a positive way and be as impactful as possible. To me, that’s what it’s all about.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

139

500

PEGGY ZWISLER

BY ALISON PREECE

LEVELING THE FIELD: THE ENDURING LEGACY OF PEGGY ZWISLER “WE DON’T HAVE GIRLS IN OUR LITIGATION DEPARTMENT.” Sounds like something out of an old cartoon, with a freckle-faced boy pouting in front of a tree house. Alas, this was the actual response that legendary antitrust attorney Margaret “Peggy” Zwisler received as a young lawyer interviewing at law firms, hungry for courtroom experience. Zwisler had started law school in 1973 after working as a paralegal at a major Chicago law firm where she recalls there were 115 men and just one woman in the litigation department. (The solo female litigator would go on to be a U.S. District Court judge.)

After graduating near the top of her class from George Washington University Law School – where she won the Moot Court competition alongside one of the few other female law students, worked as a law clerk to the chief litigation counsel at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and received high honors and the

140

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Order of the Coif – Zwisler knew she wanted to be a trial lawyer. She didn’t yet know what antitrust law was, and had never taken an economics course (her college, the all-female Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, only offered Home Economics). She just knew she belonged in a courtroom.

After interviewing at the biggest and best law firms and being told, “Well, you’re going to be working for two men and one of them does some litigation, so if he thinks you’re up to it, maybe he’ll give you a little litigation project,” Zwisler knew she needed something different. She interviewed at Howrey LLP, which had 58 lawyers and was almost exclusively focused on antitrust claims, which at the time was a trial-heavy practice.

It turned out to be an excellent fit.

“I quickly realized that antitrust work, combined with my courtroom life, was the perfect substantive area of the law for me,” says Zwisler. “I love it because you

PHOTO BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN

500

get to dive into a company and how it works, how it distributes its products, how it made strategic decisions, and how to defend them. You need to read the case law but you also have to understand the business, the economics, how firms relate to each other, and what that means in a practical sense.”

Clients from Ocean Spray Cranberries, Time Warner, Ford Motor Company, and Guitar Center, to makers of contact lenses and artificial teeth, have all been grateful for Zwisler’s 360-degree view of their business and industry from a competition perspective. In a closely watched international case, she won dismissal of a suit against The London Metal Exchange that alleged collusion with major banks over the price of aluminum, using a novel assertion that LME was an instrument of the UK government and therefore immune to U.S. courts. In a trial for Calvin Klein, she handily achieved an injunction and an asset freeze of Taiwanese companies who had been importing counterfeit perfume. For Hoover, the vacuum maker, she defeated a patent claim brought

by Black & Decker with a counterclaim of monopolization involving the Patent and Trademark Office, in the first (of many to come) trials in which she was first chair.

The Hart-Scott Rodino Act, which was passed the same year Zwisler graduated law school, began the era of diminishing trials in the antitrust arena. Still, she has led several dozen trials over her storied career, earning a reputation as a trusted guide in the courtroom, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the law and an impressive ability to tell a clear and compelling story to juries and judges.

Naturally, she’s a member of the esteemed Lawdragon 500 Hall of Fame.

Zwisler has story after story of gender-based discrimination from throughout her career, some cringe-worthy, some funny (at least in hindsight), and some downright sickening. Strategy meetings set in men’s clubs, where they snuck her in through the freight elevator. A name tag that said “Mr. Zwisler” because the (female) office manager declared there wasn’t room for an “s.” A co-defendant warning her before jury selection, “We don’t like Hillary Clinton down here.” Okay…? Or this one: “How did a nice little girl like you get involved in this tough antitrust litigation?” (She was 50 years old when she got that last gem.)

Norris, who was, at the time, litigation counsel for an international oil and gas company. When the waiter at the club told her, “You can’t go back there, little lady,” Norris spoke up. “What? Why?” “Well, it’s men only, sir. I can bring her a club sandwich out here.” Norris planted himself in the waiting room, stared down the waiter and said, “Bring me a club sandwich.” The rest of the group, seven white men in their 40s accustomed to lunches of bourbon and beef, followed suit, eating sandwiches in the lobby so the strategizing with Zwisler could continue.

Amanda Reeves. Photo provided by the Firm.

Zwisler’s extraordinary professional achievements are only part of the legend: She did it all while raising four children, three of whom were adopted from Paraguay as infants.

Her hard work paid off, as she made partner at Howrey in 1980 – news she received while she was on maternity leave with her first (and, it turned out, only) biological child, Rebecca. She and her husband would go on to adopt JohnCarl, Kevin Joseph, and Margarita. Building a robust courtroom career while simultaneously being an active mother to four children is enough to earn Zwisler the golden seal of the modern Wonder Woman.

The extra mile, and a large part of her enduring legacy, is her mentorship of female lawyers.

But for every story of discrimination (well, perhaps for every five or 10 or 20 stories – but who’s counting), she has a story of a male ally, someone who stood up for her against the prejudices of the time.

After 29 years at Howrey, Zwisler was headhunted

by Latham & Watkins, which at the time had sparse antitrust litigation capabilities, particularly in Washington. Daniel Wall, who led the San Francisco antitrust practice, was aware of Zwisler’s incredible track record and championed her joining the firm. Zwisler has since spearheaded the growth of the firm’s antitrust shop into the international powerhouse it is today, in part by training some of the firm’s smartest, generalist associates into the practice.

The strategy meeting in the men’s club, for example, was salvaged by an attorney by the name of Robert

Shattering the glass ceiling is a powerful and necessary step in the fight towards gender parity in the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

141

500

behave from a competition standpoint a century later.

Industries like high tech, biotech, pharmaceutical, all in a global environment, none of which you could’ve ever contemplated in 1890.”

Reeves’ fascination with the practice is infectious, which is rather natural given her mentor: “If I sound excited about it, it’s times ten with Peggy,” says Reeves. “What I still remember about my first year or two of working with her is how much she loved antitrust and competition laws.”

Jennifer Giordano. Photo provided by the Firm.

law. Every time a woman makes partner, she makes progress for all of us. Even more ground-breaking?

Sweeping away the shards and reaching down your hand to the next generation of brilliant and capable women, which is exactly how Zwisler has operated.

Her mentees include a powerhouse group of women who are now in leadership roles in Latham’s antitrust shop – women who learned directly from Zwisler, not just about the nuances of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, but also how to balance a career with raising children and how to effectively operate in an industry that remains stubbornly male-dominated.

“Antitrust was new to me,” recalls Amanda Reeves, who is now Global Chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition practice. She was a young associate at Latham in 2004 when she was assigned to assist the new antitrust

Jennifer Giordano, now a litigation and antitrust partner, and Allyson Maltas, counsel in the D.C. office, were also assigned to Zwisler as associates in her first couple years at Latham. They would go on to absorb her dedicated work ethic and team-building efforts, which include team meetings after each trial day with all attorneys and staff to discuss the day’s events and the plan for the remainder of trial.

Giordano was a senior associate with a good amount of trial experience when Zwisler pulled her into a case that remains oft-discussed in antitrust circles: Feesers v. Michael Foods, which set a higher standard for plaintiffs bringing price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act. They won the case on appeal in the Third Circuit.

“Going to trial with Peggy was an awesome learning experience, not only because she is an incredible trial lawyer, but also because she was the only woman lead lawyer in the courtroom,” says Giordano. “Seeing her in action, giving the opening and commanding that room, was a sight to behold. I knew instantly that I wanted her to be my mentor.”

Zwisler also led a trial team that included Giordano and Maltas for Cox Communications, in a closely watched cable case that Latham took over from another firm.

The dispute centered around the allegation that a consumer had to rent a set-top box in order to get the video on demand, which they called an antitrust violation. The case had not been going well for Cox, as their prior counsel had lost a motion to dismiss and summary judgment, a class had been certified, and a trial had been set, all before Latham was brought in.

Allyson Maltas. Photo provided by the Firm.

partner, Zwisler, in writing a motion to dismiss. She was hooked. “I just thought it was the most fascinating area of law that one could ever work in.

“What excited me about it, and what still excites me about it, is you have statutes that are over 100 years old that are literally a sentence or two, and are supposed to govern how corporations and individuals 142

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The group had an uphill battle, but Zwisler’s signature deep-dive into the facts, calm and reasonable demeanor in the courtroom, and encyclopedic antitrust knowledge proved successful: They turned the ship around and won a direct verdict for the client, upheld on appeal.

Giordano had become a partner by then, and was seven and a half months pregnant at the time. But there was something else that made that trial with Peggy notable: “This particular trial stands out to me because it is the first time that I remember feeling like Peggy and I were

500

truly peers in the courtroom,” says Giordano. “I know she felt it too, and considered it a point of pride. All those things she had taught me paid off – diving into complicated antitrust law and theory, loving the law, and pulling out all the stops for the big win.”

For Maltas, it was her first trial, and while she was as hungry for a win as any good litigator, she was also nervous about being away from her kids so much.

Zwisler understood, and made sure Maltas carved out time each day to connect with them.

Ray. The jury returned a complete defense verdict in less than two hours.

Zwisler’s mentorship of these brilliant lawyers was perhaps a natural move for her, given her own experience back in the ’70s as a mentee: Ralph Savarese, who would go on to become the Chairman of Howrey, hired Zwisler to the firm and took her under his wing.

“He was a very balanced individual and he took talent where he found it,” says Zwisler.

“Every night while the rest of the team was having dinner and debriefing, I stepped into my office, called my older son and read Harry Potter to him in bed,” says Maltas.

“I had the confidence to believe that this balance was something I could pull off because I was with Peggy.”

The work/life balance is sometimes still a punch line.

Zwisler is widely admired for her exacting standards and command of the courtroom, but her mentees also appreciate the way she protects her personal time without apology. It’s something all law firms must learn to value if they want to retain their female talent for the long run.

“Peggy works extremely hard, but she has a rule: No cell phones at her dinner table,” says Reeves.

“She also goes on vacations. Actual, real vacations when she says ‘I’ll be back in two weeks.’ I admire that. She knows how to have some boundaries and separation between her work and her personal life.

And she takes her obligations as a mother and wife very seriously, in all the right ways that you want out of a role model.”

Another key mentee of Zwisler’s is Sarah Ray, Co-Chair of Latham’s Bay Area Litigation & Trial department. Ray was tapped by Oracle to take over a case going to federal court, where the plaintiff alleged he had been misled by Oracle’s sales team and that its software caused his business to fail.

“When I approach any case,” says Ray, “the first thing I think of is ‘WWPD?’ – What Would Peggy Do? – and then follow her mandate: Don’t just play defense, but wrest the narrative from plaintiff and tell an affirmative story to the jury that humanizes your client.”

They dug into the facts, re-deposed the plaintiff and worked with the Oracle witnesses to tell a very different story about the plaintiff’s failing business and financial mismanagement, as well as about an Oracle team that worked mightily to satisfy a difficult and mercurial customer.

“Peggy served as a sounding board for me as I crafted opening statement and closing argument, and cheered us on as each of the associates conducted superb witness examinations and arguments at trial,” says

Sarah Ray. Photo provided by the Firm.

“He gave me exactly the same chances that he gave the men,” she recalls. “That was saying something in those days. A lot of my friends who were women from George Washington went to firms but couldn’t get an anchor with a mentor, and that impeded their success.

You have to have a mentor.”

Zwisler considers mentoring the key to closing the gap between the number of female law students (about half) and that of female equity partners (lingering around 20 percent). While it’s certainly beneficial for female associates to have women partners to look up to and learn from, the gender of the mentors, Zwisler asserts, is not critical.

“I was mentored very successfully by a man,” says Zwisler.

“And I do like to think that I’ve mentored men as successfully as women.” The key is an active fostering of talent, making oneself available to discuss legal strategy as well as career moves, business development, and – regardless of gender – more personal issues such as a sustainable work/life balance.

As our vice president-elect Kamala Harris said so poignantly recently: “While I may be the first woman in this office, I will not be the last.” Zwisler paved a pathway through the wilderness, blasting through prejudices to pursue the life she was meant to live – all the while making sure the path was clear for the next generation of brilliant female lawyers to do the same.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

143

500

CHRISTINE VARNEY GOOGLE. FACEBOOK. APPLE. So few companies. Such vast power.

That’s the age we’re living in, and no one understands the competitive markets of those companies and so many others quite like Cravath’s antitrust ace, Christine A. Varney. She has overseen the greenlighting of numerous deals since joining Cravath in 2011 and worked alongside the firm’s corporate partners to ensure smooth sailing on hundreds of transactions.

The only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, she came to her appreciation of fair play early on. One of six children growing up in upstate New York, she remembers vividly going with her mother from shop to shop for paper towels, meat or milk to get the best price.

She went to Georgetown Law School after working for the United Farm Workers in California, motivated to help protect people’s rights. Since then, she’s become one of the most respected lawyers in the country, admired for her vast expertise and insight.

144

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

Lawdragon: You’ve achieved so much in the antitrust world in a time of important evolution in those laws and their enforcement. How would you characterize the state of antitrust law and enforcement when you began your career; and how has it changed to now?

Christine A. Varney: Antitrust law is broad and evolves over time to keep up with innovations and technologies that profoundly impact competition.

I was at the Federal Trade Commission in the mid1990s, when we were first starting to see a lot of new, innovative technologies, and also starting to see them combine in ways that were sometimes tricky for antitrust analysis. We had to think about these businesses in different ways, including asking questions about how a merger or certain behaviors are consistent with the antitrust laws.

At the FTC, we created a framework for examining innovation and competition that became known as “innovation market analysis.” This baseline methodology examines the impact on competition of a proposed combination of companies that are both innovators. Will the merger enhance competition

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

because both innovators are coming together and they will get a product to market sooner? Or will it slow competition because the innovators in that particular space are now combined as one company?

These questions are more relevant today than ever.

Companies and technologies have evolved, of course, but today much of my work involves helping clients to “see around corners.” Working to anticipate the government’s position is essential to mapping potential issues and advising a company early in the course of a transaction. When I arrived at the Department of Justice in 2009, my priority was to provide bu¬sinesses with transparency and predictability around merger enforcement at the DOJ and the FTC. That principle was a primary basis for issuing the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and Guide to Merger Remedies. Those efforts at the DOJ and FTC also facilitated cooperation and transparency among U.S. and international enforcement agencies, and today still help us think about antitrust with our clients. Clear enforcement guidance is a benefit to all parties.

LD: What were your first notions of becoming a lawyer, and were there particular mentors in law school or throughout your career who inspired or guided you?

CAV: Law was something I was very interested in, but I did not go to Georgetown Law with the specific goal of becoming an antitrust lawyer. I had worked for the United Farm Workers for a couple of years in California. I went to law school after that experience because I was motivated by the prospect of working in a system that would protect and promote people’s rights and benefit folks in their everyday lives.

Prior to all of that, though, I grew up mostly in upstate New York in a very politically active household and knew from a young age that I wanted to take part in politics and policymaking. My father was involved with the Robert Kennedy campaigns, both for Senate and President, and my mother was an upstate New York organizer for the Farm Workers.

I remember vividly as a child going with my mother to a particular butcher because the hamburger was cheaper there, and then going to another butcher because the chicken was cheaper there; going to one grocery store because paper towels were on sale, and going to another one because that’s where the milk was on sale. All of that mattered for a family of eight. It was ingrained in me from a very early age that competition deeply impacts the lives of everyday people. I grew up with the understanding that when you have competitive markets, you are

ultimately going to benefit consumers with lower prices, better services and better innovation – although I would not have been articulating those principles as a 12-year-old!

Those early experiences are what sparked my interest in consumer protection, but it was not until I studied antitrust in law school that it became clear that I had grown up living it every day. Because my parents were comparison shoppers, I was able to see – both as a child and later as a law student – the connection between antitrust and its impact on people’s lives.

I have benefitted greatly from a number of very important mentors in my life: Jane Harman, Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan and Bob Pitofsky. I learned so much from each of them, but one thing they all had in common was an abiding commitment to helping others up the ladder – never pull the ladder up behind you.

LD: What advice do you give young lawyers today who are interested in achieving significant leadership responsibilities and impact in government?

CAV: I encourage young lawyers to seek out opportunities for significant responsibility and take ownership of your work as early as possible. Take pride in your work, and embrace challenges as opportunities to learn.

At the same time, don’t shy away from collaboration – it is key to successful outcomes, especially when an answer is not immediately evident. As you work through a complex issue and see that things may be not going as you would like, having a team you can rely on is essential. Both while in government and now at Cravath, I have always been fortunate to have the full backing of everyone with whom I have worked, and consequently the full benefit of true collaboration.

LD: What matters have you recently worked on that you can discuss and what were some of their particular challenges?

CAV: On the regulatory clearance side, we work with clients on many of the world’s largest transactions. I am working with a team advising Mylan in its pending $50B combination with Upjohn, Pfizer’s off-patent branded and generic medicines business, and in 2019, we advised Occidental Petroleum in its $57B acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, the largest U.S. oil and gas merger in more than 20 years.

The latter deal was also one of the largest contested takeovers in the past decade, as our client topped Anadarko’s original agreement with Chevron. I am also currently advising Illumina in its pending $8B

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

145

500 acquisition of GRAIL, a healthcare company focused on multi-cancer early detection, and Just Eat Takeaway in its pending $7.3B acquisition of Grubhub, which will create the world’s leading food delivery company outside of China.

been around for over 200 years, and the firm has evolved with the times and also helped shape them.

That history was certainly relevant when I decided to join the firm, and it has been an exciting platform to build from and grow.

Cravath has also played a central role in many of the most significant, industry-shaping antitrust litigation matters in recent history, including U.S. v. AT&T. That was a particularly rewarding case for me, as I had the opportunity to work on the Cravath team that helped achieve that milestone victory for our client. In terms of other high-profile work from the practice, Cravath recently achieved a full defense victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in favor of Qualcomm, with a decision that vacated a California federal court’s May 2019 judgment in favor of the FTC and reversed a permanent, worldwide injunction that prohibited several of Qualcomm’s core business practices. This had been one of the largest technology-related legal battles of the last few years, and we represented Qualcomm at every stage.

Today, we continue to work with clients who are facing significant and complex antitrust challenges in litigation and advise on many of the largest and most transformative deals happening across industries. At the moment, antitrust law is quite focused on the role and rule of law for technology, so at the firm, we spend a lot of time thinking through these important issues and counseling clients on how to stay within the bounds of antitrust law while continuing to grow as a company. It is not always easy, but the Cravath team is never deterred by challenges or new frontiers, and being able to lead clients through this landscape is extremely rewarding.

We are now actively representing Blue Cross Blue Shield members in consolidated multidistrict antitrust class litigation – one of the largest class actions in the country – in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. These cases, brought by separate putative classes of healthcare providers and health insurance subscribers, comprise multifaceted arguments and a number of moving pieces that challenge certain foundational aspects of the Blue Cross Blue Shield system.

The firm is also currently representing Epic Games in two separate actions against Apple and Google, alleging that the companies are engaged in anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of certain apps on smartphones and in the processing of inapp purchases. Our client, the creator of the enormously popular game Fortnite, alleges that Apple and Google are placing unnecessary and anticompetitive restrictions on users’ ability to download apps in violation of the Sherman Act. LD: You joined Cravath as a rare hire from outside the firm to help lead a practice that has contributed to shaping modern antitrust law. Was building on this history part of what drew you to the firm, and how do you reflect on that decision nearly a decade later?

CAV: I had been leading the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice for a couple of years when Cravath approached me. I thought they were coming to talk about a case, and I was very surprised when they said they were interested in having me come to the firm. Cravath is a venerable institution – it has 146

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Cravath has been involved in countless highstakes, high-profile antitrust matters since you began leading the practice. What, in your view, makes the firm unique in this area?

CAV: Before I even came to the firm, Cravath attorneys had appeared before me both when I was at the FTC and the DOJ, and I can say without hesitation that they were some of the best lawyers I had ever seen. With law firms, generally speaking, you will find certain great lawyers; the difference with Cravath was that every single partner I met was equal to the one I had met previously. The quality and caliber of lawyering across the board was consistent and distinctive.

Cravath’s antitrust practice is unique because we have dedicated antitrust lawyers who are both experts in the specific field and have extensive experience in other areas of legal practice. The depth of expertise that Cravath lawyers bring in across different areas of law, such as in the areas of securities or intellectual property, makes the firm uniquely qualified to handle high-stakes antitrust work that invariably intersects with these other disciplines. Our ability to develop that level of talent and expertise stems from the firm’s commitment to generalist training. Our training model ensures that all of our lawyers have a broad perspective, as well as the versatility to be creative in devising solutions to complex issues that are consistent with our clients’ long-term business and strategic goals.

What I love about practicing at Cravath, and what I believe to be a product of these unique attributes, is that our clients get the best of the whole firm and we are able to go “all in” on every matter. For example, we represented Time Warner in its combination with

500

AT&T – we did the underlying deal and the related antitrust work and then through litigation to finally get the transaction approved and closed, despite the government’s attempt to block the merger. Working with a talented team of lawyers from many firms, AT&T and Time Warner prevailed after a six-week trial in what was the government’s first challenge to a vertical merger in almost 40 years. That was a tremendous effort that involved our corporate and litigation lawyers all working toward a monumental decision for our client. It was particularly special given our history with the company (Cravath started representing Time Inc. in the 1920s), a relationship reflective of the trust we are afforded by our clients every day.

LD: Antitrust law, as with many areas of enforcement, seems to have a malleability with politics and economics, increasingly on a global scale. Is this something you view as a good or bad thing?

CAV: Antitrust law will continue to intersect with politics and economics into the foreseeable future, and those factors undoubtedly influence the marketplace and how the government views competition.

These considerations are critical to take into account when crafting solutions for clients – they reflect the world we live in, which I think makes them inherently important for clients to think through as they plan for their businesses.

LD: What industries or areas might pose new antitrust questions in the next decade, and where should companies expect enforcement to focus?

CAV: Companies today must contend with an increasingly global environment and the considerations that come with it. As more businesses operate internationally and countries continue to create robust antitrust policies, U.S. companies and lawyers must keep in mind how such transactions will reach beyond domestic borders. Deals are analyzed in multiple jurisdictions, and there is not one standard approach for clearance. Regulatory scrutiny remains challenging as a result of the growing number of moving pieces, and the best solutions will ultimately be what will meet the intersecting interests of the government, consumers and companies.

As far as areas that may see continued focus from enforcers and new questions, I expect we will see continued activity and change in the “technology platform” space.

LD: What antitrust considerations or concerns have come about for clients related to the pandemic?

CAV: In March, just as the U.S. was starting to really feel the impact of the pandemic and both the

courts and market ground to a halt, Cravath worked to outline antitrust considerations for clients as they considered the months ahead for their businesses.

We examined in particular the review processes implemented by the FTC and DOJ in response to the pandemic, as updated Hart-Scott-Rodino filing and merger review processes implemented changes suspending early termination of the waiting period, as well as new e-filing and telework procedures. We also looked at the difficulty of conducting market tests, and likely delays in merger reviews conducted by foreign antitrust regulators as a result of updated measures and policy changes that came about in response to Covid-19.

Another area we expected the DOJ or FTC to target – and we may see more of this play out – was whether competitor companies would decide to cooperate in endeavors related to the pandemic.

These could include benchmarking best practices for safe distribution of products, joint production of medical equipment and supplies, or joint research and development initiatives for a vaccine or antivirals.

The firm examined which types of collaborations might be considered immune from antitrust scrutiny and which were unlawful, and outlined several “dos and don’ts” of collaboration along with examples of laws that may form the basis of an antitrust defense.

As our country and countries around the world continue to navigate the effects of the pandemic, I expect we will be seeing various market repercussions and examining new antitrust questions for our clients for quite some time.

LD: Where have you been spending your time during Covid, and would you talk a bit about your life this year? How are you doing? What do you look forward to most when whatever a new normal is returns?

CAV: I have been spending a lot of time at home adapting to the “new normal,” but one thing that hasn’t changed is how busy we remain with client matters. Cravath attorneys and staff have been working remotely since March, and though we have all pulled together brilliantly to make the transition relatively seamless, I look forward to being back in the office once it is safe to return. In a way, these circumstances have united all New Yorkers toward a common cause – I feel a great sense of shared resilience and determination that we will get through this together. I believe our city and our country will recover and build back stronger than we were before.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

147

500

JONATHAN D. SCHILLER HOUND DOG. YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT. WE WILL ROCK YOU. SMASH HITS. B SIDES. WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF JONATHAN D. SCHILLER. Since founding Boies Schiller & Flexner in 1997, Schiller has become perhaps the legal world’s most famous flip side. The “A” side, of course, is David Boies, not only the most famous but also likely the most influential trial lawyer of his generation.

Every Paul needs his John (and Freddie his Brian) for many reasons – not the least of which is balance and a stinging riff. And Schiller has provided that in abundance, winning billions in high-stakes financial litigation and international arbitrations and defeat-

148

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

ing claims for even more. He has won high-profile cases for clients from Goldman Sachs and Barclays to the New York Yankees and DraftKings.

His competitiveness comes easy after years as a basketball standout, culminating as a member of the 1967-68 Ivy League men’s basketball championship team at Columbia, ranked fifth in the country; he was inducted into the Columbia University Athletics Hall of Fame in February 2006.

Schiller has been an honored alumnus of Columbia University, serving a nine-year term on Columbia University’s Board of Trustees including a five-year term as Chair of Columbia’s Board. In 2019, he was awarded Columbia Law School’s highest honor, the Medal of Excellence. Schiller was also named a “Legend of Ivy League Basketball” by the Ivy League. In 2020, Columbia’s Basketball Court in Levien Gymnasium was named the Jonathan D. Schiller Court.

Less well-known is the remarkable beginning to this Maggie Mae, though much of it was the stuff of headlines from the late 1960s through the ‘80s.

PHOTO BY JENNIFER POTTHEISER

500

His parents, Irving and Patricia Schiller, were both lawyers and moved to the nation’s capital during the New Deal. His father worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission and his mother, who also earned a master’s degree in clinical psychology, worked for the U.S. Office of Price Administration, as well as the National Labor Relations Board before becoming a nationally recognized pioneer and scholar in sex education and therapy.

“I knew I was expected to become a professional,” Schiller recalls. “So I became a lawyer by default; I couldn’t stand the sight of blood.”

That modest self-assessment belies what Schiller has accomplished in the decades since leaving his post as a teacher at Georgetown Day high school in Washington, D.C. during the Vietnam War – which he remembers as an “innovative and non-traditional private school” – to earn a law degree at Columbia University.

In the summer of 1968, as a summer intern for the District of Columbia government, Schiller regularly accompanied the City Council’s vice chairman, Walter Fauntroy, on daily tours of a camp set up on the National Mall by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his Mule Train to bring international attention to his fight against racism and poverty. Schiller wrote a report on “Police Community Relations” for Reverend Fauntroy and the Washington, D.C. City Council that summer.

Later, at Columbia Law, Schiller won a small Ford Foundation grant to teach New York police officers basic Spanish skills so they could effectively communicate with residents of Spanish Harlem, a program for which he eventually won police officers’ buy-in through his championship basketball team’s televised presence in New York.

He also spent a summer of law school working for the legal team of the United Farm Workers leader César Chávez during the California lettuce strike, providing legal support for the picket lines and participating in federal court injunctive efforts to protect the farmworkers during one of the largest labor actions by farmworkers in the country’s history.

“I’ve always been out there looking for opportunities to help people who are up against overwhelming interests and are fighting for their civil rights,” Schiller says. “Serving as a plaintiffs’ lawyer in our practice has been very good to me and my family, but that’s not the reason I pursued claims on behalf of victims who were put in personal and financial risk by power-

ful interests who crossed the line. I like fighting for people and doing justice, hopefully.”

Call it something like a Revolution.

Lawdragon: How much of that desire was shaped by your parents? It sounds like they were amazing role models.

Jonathan Schiller: My mother had a big influence on my sister and me, as did my dad. He started at the SEC when it opened its doors in Philadelphia under Chairman William Douglas, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Philadelphia. He then moved to Washington when the SEC moved to Washington, and he rose in enforcement. When I was entering high school, he was asked by its Chairman Manny Cohen to lead the New York office of the SEC, which was the SEC’s most important regional office. But I didn’t want to move to New York because of my preoccupation with basketball and so my dear father kindly kept us in Washington where the SEC named him Chief of their Administrative Law Judges.

When I visit the SEC periodically on behalf of clients who have problems with the agency, I wait with others to meet with staff in a reception area where the Commission maintains composite photos of past SEC leadership. Their faces and their titles appear in large photographs with the commissioners at the top of the pyramid. And my dad is in one of those photographs from the early 1960s. When a lawyer from enforcement greets me in that reception area to take us upstairs, I often ask, “May I show you my dad’s history with the commission? I’m from an SEC family.”

And then I take them over and I show them my dad’s photograph. My point was, “You can trust me. I’m not going to play games with you. I understand what you need to know. I have great faith in the commission.”

Those are genuine comments. My parents came to D.C. in the New Deal, as I said and I was born right at the end of the Second World War when Washington was a thriving and exciting city. And the SEC was held in the highest regard.

LD: Did your mom ever practice?

JS: She practiced law at the Legal Aid Society when my sister and I were little and that launched her on her other career. While she was at Legal Aid, women came to see her whose daughters had become pregnant at ages anywhere from 10 to 16, and they were being thrown out of public schools.

LD: For being pregnant?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

149

500 JS: For being pregnant. And so my mother said, “Well, you have a right to education, they can’t do that.” And she began the process to legally address that issue. Washington at the time was still run by Congress and she either sued or threatened to sue the federal government over their denial of a public education for young, pregnant girls throughout Washington, D.C. As a result of her legal efforts, the then Department of Health and Welfare appropriated funds to purchase an old building in downtown Washington that was converted into a school, the Webster School for Unwed Mothers.

My mother started that school and then went to American University where she obtained a degree in psychology. Following graduation, she served the students at American University and the Webster School. She also began writing a series of textbooks on sex education that served doctors and educators throughout the country. She introduced the field of sex education in the United States. And for her contributions to public education, the New York Times marked her place in American history with an obituary following her death in 2018.

control. And very interesting to watch. Very pleasant, very gracious, and very focused.

LD: I can see how much they inspired you. The parallels between your mom’s work and yours are striking, especially with your work in the Spanish training classes, for example. Tell me more about that program.

JS: When I returned to Columbia College after working with the D.C. government in the summer, the Ford Foundation provided Columbia with a $40M grant focused on urban development. I wrote a proposal for a grant related to my work that summer on police community relations. I proposed that police officers learn simple Spanish at their precinct that would permit them to have some capacity for communication with the Spanish speaking communities they served. Aided calls, a call to the police for help in a domestic situation, were a high percentage of police calls from the public in Harlem at the time.

My grant was funded and a police precinct in East Harlem allowed me the opportunity to place Spanish language instructors I recruited from Columbia College in their precinct.

LD: And your dad was an administrative law judge?

This program wasn’t altogether popular with the beat officers at first. Ordinarily, the officers come off their shifts and go home. But in order to participate in our program, they had to remain in their station for the Spanish class, and because of that, the captain required them to come in an hour early before their shift or stay an hour late. I was present at the commencement of each program to introduce the teachers and explain its purpose. The program lasted a school year (1968-69) after we made an early presentation. I remember standing by the door after we made a presentation, and several officers, as they walked by, hit me in the leg with their billy clubs to express their view of my interference with their job and schedule. I was making them do something they didn’t want to do, and they weren’t even getting paid to go to this program, but the captain thought this Spanish language education would be important.

JS: Yes, I got to watch my father conduct trials in New York when I was in college. He would sometimes schedule hearings in New York around my basketball games, and I would have the opportunity to sit in the back of his hearing room and watch him run the trial.

He was an active judge and questioned witnesses thoroughly. The enforcement staff, of course, presented their case but my father intervened politely when he wanted to make something clear in the record. My father was a calm, humorous and pleasant guy, but in the courtroom he was in complete

So that year, as this program commenced, our basketball team at Columbia University played through its schedule and proved to be a very good team. We won the Ivy League men’s basketball championship in 1968, and we were on TV several Saturday afternoons in New York. At home in D.C. during my summers in college, I played basketball every weekend at a very popular court at the Chevy Chase Playground. Red Auerbach occasionally showed up with several of the Celtics to play on that court. His daughter and I had gone to Sunday School together and he knew me

My mother also started the American Association for Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (“AASECT”). There were a lot of people offering “professional” sex advice to individuals and couples, without any standards and with some abuse of their clients. She set up this blue-chip organization to certify counselors under a set of standards applied by a panel of experts. As AASECT progressed, many medical doctors sought this certification and the training that went with it.

My mother conducted seminars on sex education with doctors abroad at the request of the World Bank and shared scholarly papers with Masters and Johnson and others in the field. My mother was a very straight lady, but she was involved in some very interesting stuff.

150

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

a little bit when he joined some of those games at Chevy Chase. He later was a television announcer for one of those Saturday afternoon basketball games featuring our college team and when he recognized me on the court, I was later told, he spoke about me.

It turned out that some of the police officers in that Spanish Harlem precinct happened to be watching that game and their mood dramatically changed when I next visited the precinct. I was actually an OK guy despite disrupting their schedules.

LD: That’s amazing. Once you graduated law school in 1973, are there cases or incidents in the early years that stand out to you?

JS: Definitely, I have been lucky to participate in a number of exciting and important cases. After my federal district court clerkship in Washington, I accepted a position as an associate at Arnold Porter. My first week there, I was asked to go into a conference room where the table was filled with banker boxes of documents as far as the eye could see. It felt like half a block. A partner explained, “This is the tobacco multi-district litigation which involves all tobacco sold at auction in the United States. So read up on the case, you’re going to join the tobacco team.”

I spent two weeks reading into this case. And it was a major antitrust case against Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies, who were accused of fixing up the prices of tobacco sold at auction. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy over the price fixing of every pile of tobacco sold at auction in several southern states. I was assigned to work on a team led by Bob Fiske, a distinguished New York lawyer and former U.S. Attorney to travel through the auctions, learn how the auctions were run, talk to the auctioneers, look at the records of the sales and determine whether there was a conspiracy to fix prices or not. I became immersed in this set of facts under Bob’s expert leadership. On behalf of Phillip Morris and others, we were able to prevent the class from being certified because we established that each auction was different; the tobacco companies won partial summary judgment. And my appetite for determining and using facts was established.

After a year and a half with Arnold & Porter, I was invited by three partners who were leaving the firm to join them at Rogovin, Stern & Huge. I jumped at that opportunity because of who they were and the nature of their work. I worked closely with Gerald Stern on a mine disaster case in Kentucky for much of my first two years there. We represented the widows of 17 miners who lost their lives in a methane gas explosion

in Oven Fork, Kentucky. Through a difficult trial and successful appeal, we were able to deliver substantial damages to the widows and their children. Looking back, I should note that Gerald, like David Boies, has an unusual memory: His brain records every fact he reads or hears which is quite helpful to a trial lawyer.

Through Harry Huge, I was introduced to union work.

I was asked by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and Textile Union to pursue a Section 1983 civil rights case against J.P. Stevens in Milledgeville, Ga. The union organizers there believed they were being watched and listened to by the local police who aided the company in blocking the unionization of J.P. Stevens Milledgeville in Georgia. The opportunity to develop and prosecute this case was a big chapter of my early life as a lawyer. That case and similar cases I later brought on behalf of the ironworkers led me to cities and small towns throughout the south and the southwest where union organizing and union elections were challenged by government interference including by local police departments. I did that work for two to three years.

LD: Did you travel to courthouses in the South?

JS: Yes, I filed 1983 actions in federal courts. A lot of textile companies had moved from New England to right-to-work states in the South where they received a variety of tax incentives to build mills.

And in Milledgeville, Ga., as my first lawsuit established, J.P. Stevens had built a conspiracy with other companies in town to defeat union organizing with the assistance of the mayor and the chief of police.

Milledgeville was Flannery O’Connor’s home; it was the antebellum capital of the South, a very old, and distinguished southern town.

The union had heard from a source that the police were “spying on the union.” I didn’t know what that meant but I traveled to Milledgeville and looked through police department records which were available to the public. I was searching for any officers who had left the force in recent years and may have relevant information. I went to public files and I wrote down names, phone numbers and addresses.

I started visiting houses in Milledgeville, ringing doorbells and talking to people trying to get information.

The union organizers had told me when I first arrived that they were being trailed by squad cars whenever they came to town. They always felt they were being watched and listened to. And local people who came to their organizing meetings at the Milledgeville Holiday Inn stopped coming after they or others in their families lost their jobs at Milledgeville businesses. So I

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

151

500 wrote all that down, but I still didn’t have anyone with direct knowledge, just theories.

Most ex-cops wouldn’t talk to me. However, I found one young guy by chance who, after leaving the police department, was manning the midnight shift at a youth corrections institution somewhere on the outskirts of Milledgeville. I knocked on the building door and he let me in. I said to him, “I’m a lawyer from Washington D.C. I know what you were doing at the Holiday Inn when the union organizers held meetings there. I know what you were doing when you were on the police department with the mayor’s office to try to keep the unions out of town.”

I was quite unsure as to what he or other police were doing. At that point, I had no specific information.

LD: You were bluffing.

JS: I was proposing a theory but I was earnest when I also said, “I’m not interested in hurting you. I just want the information so that I can help the unions deal with J.P. Stevens without the police interfering with the union organizing effort. And if you cooperate with me, you will see no harm from me.” He became concerned rather quickly at my late night intrusion but he didn’t say “no.” I mean he could have said “get out of here” but he didn’t. He decided to tell me his story.

He was 23-24 years old. He talked to me all night. I took careful notes as he told me his story. He explained that he and others would sit in their cars and as people drove into the Holiday Inn parking lot to attend meetings with union organizers, he would write down the license plate numbers of each car. Usually three or four people would get out, principally Black people. He also told me that the police would also listen through the walls to union meetings being held in an adjacent room. The owner of the Holiday Inn permitted them to come in and literally spy on the union.

After the officers wrote down the license plate numbers, the young man explained he and the officers went to the offices of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation [“GBI”] to run these plate numbers through the GBI computer. Through this effort, they were able to identify the names of the car owners and their family members. They sent a list of these individuals to other companies in town including Grumman Aerospace, which had a huge plant there. Many of those individuals lost their jobs. And this was the big weapon that J.P. Stevens was using to prevent union organizing in Milledgeville. The mayor was in on it.

The chief of police was in on it. Indeed, the entire police department was aware of it.

152

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

After I prepared the Section 1983 complaint, I wrote a letter to the CEO of Grumman Aerospace in which I said, “I have discovered that your company is involved in a civil rights conspiracy to keep Amalgamated Clothing Workers from organizing a union at the J.P. Stevens plant.” I wrote, “I am sure you don’t know anything about this. But I am also sure that if you investigate this conduct, you will find out that what I’m telling you is true. And I know you don’t want your company participating in this kind of illegal conspiracy.”

Labor lawyers representing Grumman visited me at my office in Washington D.C. within a day or two of my letter and said, “What is it you that you want?”

And I said, “I want J.P. Stevens. That’s all I want. I want your people to tell me who they were dealing with there and what they did. Then I’ll ask you for a nominal penalty to settle this out: $50,000 or something like that. I’m not trying to hold you up; I could, but that is not my goal. What I want to do is stop this J.P. Stevens conspiracy and give the union a fair opportunity to organize these plants and give these Black citizens of Georgia a chance to vote for a union if that’s what they want.”

Grumman began cooperating with us after we filed the lawsuit in federal court in Macon, Georgia.

Grumman accepted deposition notices of Grumman Aerospace people who testified with candor of their participation in the conspiracy. I also met with the city attorney of Milledgeville on the day that I filed the lawsuit and took him through the initial evidence we had of the town’s involvement in the conspiracy.

I said we would be seeking a temporary restraining order before then-Federal District Judge Wilbur Owens in order to stop the conspiracy. The town agreed to cooperate with our investigation and the mayor and chief of police soon testified at deposition.

I had not named J.P. Stevens as a defendant. I had named Grumman and several other businesses and “John Doe as co-conspirators.” By the time I amended the complaint to include J.P. Stevens, we had a tidy package of sworn, indisputable facts from the depositions of Grumman, the mayor and the chief of police. The case settled within a few months and the union went on to organize four plants of J.P. Stevens during the next year.

In the end, I received a police badge from the Milledgeville Police Department making me an honorary member of the force. I have it framed in my office along with a t-shirt that the Act II organizers wore to that year’s annual shareholders meeting of J.P. Stevens which read, “Bargain, Don’t Spy!”

500

In the end, the mayor of the town appeared grateful for this lawsuit. We spoke a number of times, outside of his deposition, about the pressures placed on him

by J.P. Stevens when it came to town. They came to Milledgeville demanding all kinds of breaks on utilities and things like that, and effectively tried to run the town. He didn’t like that. But he went along with it because he thought the town would prosper.

He was relieved by this lawsuit and its settlement.

LD: That’s just an incredible story. So when did you meet David Boies? Tell me about that.

JS: I spent approximately 17 years with the firm Mitch Rogovin, Gerald Stern and Harry Huge started and which was named Rogovin, Huge and Schiller at the time I left. A couple of years after the firm opened, I worked with Mitch Rogovin in our representation of several executives at Westinghouse who were accused of being part of an effort to bribe Ferdinand Marcos, the then-president of the Philippines, to get an order from his government to build a nuclear plant – the biggest order for Westinghouse at the time.

Westinghouse did an internal investigation of “foreign payments” pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission mandate in 1976 and reported on instances of questionable payments in certain parts of the world including Egypt but concluded that there was no corruption in Westinghouse’s efforts to secure the nuclear order in the Philippines. The Securities and Exchange Commission then did its own investigation in 1978 and reached the same conclusion. I assisted Mitch in representing individuals who were examined in the course of that examination.

In 1986, when the Marcoses fled and Corazon Aquino became president, she was opposed to any form of nuclear power for electricity. She expressed concerns about the dangers of the waste from the nuclear plant. We wanted to show her that it was a safe plant, it was state of the art, and that it had been approved after a vigorous investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Philippines are famous for brownouts, and the country had the worst grid in the world at the time, but Aquino was insistent and mothballed the plant. The cost of constructing the plant was enormous and the Philippines was under heavy debt as a result. The Philippines hired Washington lawyers to sue Westinghouse for in excess of $12B, more than the company’s value at the time.

At that point I was Westinghouse’s lawyer in Washington dealing with new inquiries by the SEC and the Justice Department regarding alleged corruption in the bidding for the nuclear plant, identical

to the allegations which were investigated by the government in 1978. Those investigations including two new grand juries, one in Washington and one in Pittsburgh, were resolved successfully without any new action being taken against Westinghouse.

Soon after I learned of a threatened civil case by the Philippines, I received a call from the Westinghouse general counsel, who said, “This will be a bet-thecompany case. Because of its significance, as you can understand, we have turned to David Boies at Cravath, Swaine & Moore to defend the company.

Please see him and give him all of the materials you have prepared for us over the years.”

So I put my binders in a big box, took the train to New York where I met with David at his apartment in the city on a Saturday afternoon. I spent a few hours sitting in his kitchen, taking him through the binders and explaining all the witnesses, what they’d said before the SEC, what I understood their grand jury appearances to indicate and why I believed they had paid their agent generously to secure the contract but that no money was passed on directly or indirectly to President Marcos. I believed in the facts we had gathered and presented to the government from 1976 through 1986.

LD: What did you think of him when you first met?

JS: Oh, I liked him. He was smart, pleasant and awfully good when discussing litigation in a conversation.

He spent a lot of time listening to my presentation of the Westinghouse saga. He called me soon after I returned to Washington to ask if I wanted to do this case with him. So we began back in 1986 what has continued through today, a collaborative professional and personal relationship. We like each other, we like to talk to each other and we enjoy working together.

LD: It shows. You’ve created something amazing together – there’s a reason that you and David Boies have been such powerful partners. You each brought something to this partnership that the other did not, right?

JS: We have both said to one another, and publicly, how appreciative we are of one another’s contributions to our partnership. We have done a number of trials together since 1986, in New Jersey, in Geneva and in Washington D.C and through those trials and the development of our law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, we have forged a lasting friendship. Someone said to me in 1997, that if I take up David’s offer to start our law firm together, I will live in David’s shadow.

Well, that is a bright, cheerful and productive place, whatever one calls it and that’s what I tell people.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

153

500

The Legends Putting together our 15-year anniversary issue has been a rewarding task during these strange and unsettling times. Among the more enjoyable parts has been going through our many guides since Fall 2015 to determine the latest crop of outstanding lawyers to have made the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers for a 10th time. The 30 newcomers to (in our view) the industry’s most elite distinction are so diverse that it feels appropriate to avoid any attempts at superlatives and instead rest comfortably with “Legendary.”

As in past years, we have a handfuls of lawyers who sue corporations and those that defend them in court or guide them through the world’s most complex transactions. We have pillars of in-house lawyering, leaders of the nation’s most important civil rights organizations and even the lawyer who has spent much of the past dozen years defending the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on Guantanamo Bay. It’s quite a crew.

The other part of this process that is personally comforting is getting a glimpse of the lawyers who are likely to become Legends next year. Who knows, of course, but that makes us feel like the world will still exist.

PHOTO BY: GREG ENDRIES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

155

500

Matthew Abbott

Stephen Arcano

PAUL WEISS – NEW YORK

SKADDEN – NEW YORK

The co-chair of Paul Weiss’ M&A practice has closed a vast range of complex deals around the world, including more than 100 for General Atlantic.

Arcano heads one of the world’s most successful transactional practices, personally taking on deals for clients like Mobil Corp., Gilead Sciences and Alcatel.

Photo by Greg Endries

Photo provided by the firm

Judy Barrasso

Timothy Cameron

BARRASSO USDIN – NEW ORLEANS

156

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

One of the region’s best litigators, Barrasso has represented insurers in massive litigations involving Chinese Drywall, Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy.

Many of the world’s leading companies, from Vivendi and Spirits International to Novartis and DuPont, trust Cameron with their most important cases.

Photo by Sara Essex Bradley

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Michael Elkin

Miguel Estrada

WINSTON & STRAWN – NEW YORK

GIBSON DUNN – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Winston’s vice chairman ranks high among the nation’s IP litigators by remaining at the forefront of complex disputes arising in the digital media world.

A former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, Estrada has been an integral part of Gibson Dunn’s top-tier appellate practice for more than two decades.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

Ora Fisher

Paul Geller

LATHAM – MENLO PARK, CALIF.

ROBBINS GELLER – BOCA RATON

The Silicon Valley fixture led Latham’s growth in the region and has earned continued acclaim for guiding the firm’s strategic direction as firmwide vice chair.

Plaintiffs in the opioid litigation could find no better lead counsel than Geller, who has an astonishing track record representing inventors and consumers.

Photo by Gregory Cowley

Photo by Josh Ritchie

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

157

500

Salvatore Graziano

Shawn Holley

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ – NEW YORK

KINSELLA WEITZMAN – SANTA MONICA

Graziano spring-boarded off prosecutorial experience to become of one the nation’s best securities litigators, earning billions of dollars for shareholders.

An alum of the O.J. Simpson “Dream Time,” Holley is the lawyer of choice for a diverse mix of celebrities embroiled in thorny criminal and civil litigation.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Dave Lauridsen

Sherrilyn Ifill

Roberta Kaplan

NAACP-LDF – NEW YORK

158

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK – NEW YORK

Ifill has kept the LDF on the cutting edge of the nation’s most important civil rights issues and remained a trusted voice during the 2020 protests.

Kaplan’s caseload includes wins in the sharing-economy and financial sectors along with her ongoing commitment to groundbreaking civil rights litigation.

Photo by Greg Endries

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

David Karp

Jennifer Keller

WACHTELL – NEW YORK

KELLER ANDERLE – IRVINE, CALIF.

This prolific dealmaker has handled billion-dollar transactions for Broadcom, Tesla, Cox Automotive, PetSmart and NYSE Euronext, among many others.

Keller is hands-down one of the nation’s best trial lawyers – equally adept at litigating a plaintiff’s cause and defending companies against high-stakes claims.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Dave Lauridsen

Ethan Klingsberg

Mark Lebovitch

FRESHFIELDS – NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ – NEW YORK

With a client list that includes Google, Hewlett Packard, Dun & Bradstreet, Levi Strauss & Co. and Verizon, Klingsberg has been a transactional star for decades.

The head of Bernstein Litowitz’s growing Delaware presence is a national leader in litigating corporate governance cases that produce real reform and recoveries.

Photo by Jennifer Pottheiser or Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

159

500

Sandra Leung

Jonathan Lowy

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB – NEW YORK

BRADY LEGAL – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Leung is widely admired for her stewardship of the complex legal issues faced by the pharmaceutical giant, where Leung has spent nearly her entire career.

For more than two decades, Lowy has been a powerful legal force to limit gun violence by litigating cases against the gun industry and defending gun-control laws.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

David Marriott

Randi McGinn

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

160

MCGINN MONTOYA – ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.

Marriott has excelled for decades in the areas of antitrust, securities and intellectual property litigation, representing both large companies and individual creators.

“Tough as nails” does not begin to describe this plaintiffs ‘ lawyer: She legendarily gave birth to her daughter just one day before taking a three-day bar exam.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Molly Pan

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

David Nevin

Robin Panovka

NEVIN BENJAMIN – BOISE

WACHTELL – NEW YORK

Nevin has showcased his amazing courtroom talents defending accused 9/11 plot mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad on Guantanamo Bay.

Among the most accomplished REIT M&A lawyers of his generation, Panovka literally wrote the treatise on the subject (“REITs: Mergers and Acquisitions”).

Photo provided by the firm

Photo provided by the firm

Kathy Patrick

Anthony Romero

GIBBS & BRUNS – HOUSTON

ACLU – NEW YORK

Patrick wins big for both defendants and plaintiffs, including netting more than $20B for investors pursuing in litigation over mortgage-backed securities.

Romero has masterfully managed the ACLU’s itigation efforts, from Bush-era war-on-terror transgressions to Trump’s controversial immigration policies.

Photo by Felix Sanchez

Photo provided by the organization

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

161

500

Steven Rosenblum

Susan Saltzstein

WACHTELL – NEW YORK

SKADDEN – NEW YORK

The co-chair of Wachtell’s unparalleled corporate department has provided sage counseling to a vast range of the world’s major institutions.

Titans of the global economy trust their most important cases to Saltzstein, who serves as co-deputy of Skadden’s acclaimed securities litigation group.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo provided by the firm

Karen Patton Seymour

Tony West

GOLDMAN SACHS – NEW YORK

162

UBER – SAN FRANCISCO

The onetime federal prosecutor assumed the General Counsel role at Goldman Sachs following a storied career at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Uber scored big in 2017 by hiring West, who brings an uncommon mix of experience across private practice, in-house counseling and government service.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo provided by the company

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Marc Wolinsky

Damien Zoubek

WACHTELL – NEW YORK

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

Few lawyers have had as significant an impact on the Delaware Court of Chancery and corporate governance as this litigation giant.

It’s difficult to keep track of the multibillion-dollar deals led by this mainstay of Cravath’s corporate team, who handles deals across almost every major industry.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo provided by the firm

The Legends

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

163

RANDI M C GINN “BUT YOU DON’T LOOK LIKE A LAWYER.” Randi McGinn still gets that reaction more than 40 years into her career as a trailblazing plaintiffs’ lawyer in New Mexico.

McGinn has tried to verdict more than 130 cases in federal and state court, including a $67M win for a plaintiff who had undergone surgery to receive a pacemaker that wasn’t medically necessary — and whose doctor was receiving kickbacks from the manufacturer.

Her work for injured plaintiffs has inarguably made New Mexico a safer place, with warnings on dangerous products, better training in hospitals, signage for hazardous roadways, and regulations to protect overnight convenience store workers all part of her astounding legal legacy.

Still, some stuffy members of the old legal guard may even today balk at her style — as if starched linen and pocket squares are what makes for effective legal representation.

164

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY AND ALISON PREECE

What they may not understand is that she has deliberately chosen to be herself, rather than squeeze herself into a stereotype.

“I don’t want to look like a lawyer in the courtroom,” says McGinn, who favors flowing dresses topped with a sweater and chunky boots over tailored power suits.

Graduating law school in 1980, McGinn experienced her share of gender discrimination as a young lawyer. Lacking female mentors, she started out trying to mimic the male style, both in terms of dress and demeanor. But a couple years in, she was horrified to see herself on camera exiting a courtroom, in a dark blue suit, a rosette tie and “a very severe bun,” she says.

“I thought, oh my God, I look like my great grandfather.”

Shortly after, she adopted a maxim that has since inspired a new generation of female lawyers, and indeed anyone else who ever felt that lawyers are people who don’t look like them: “Being different in the courtroom is always an advantage.”

PHOTO BY MOLLY PAN

500

The way a superhero uses her invisibility cloak to pass undetected through perilous areas, McGinn eschews the look of a traditional lawyer in order to forge a real connection with the jurors. She points to studies that ask people about their idea of a lawyer (basically a ruthless white man in a suit) and what they wish lawyers would be like: a teacher, and a caring one at that. “I want to be the person the jurors can listen to, who they look to for guidance.”

The philosophy is working for her, to say the least.

The last trial she handled before the pandemic was against a semitrailer manufacturer, on behalf the family of a young man whose car got caught underneath a semi and was drug for 1,000 feet until his vehicle caught fire and he burned to death inside.

The industry has lobbied against adding side guard rails which would have prevented the tragedy, because they think, as McGinn succinctly says: “Safety doesn’t sell.” Through her trademark mix of creative storytelling, impassioned advocacy, and a calm and empathetic recitation of the facts, McGinn secured a $42M verdict for the young man’s family.

Taking on entrenched power systems has always been an area of pride for McGinn, be it deep-pocketed corporations with strong industry lobbyists or police departments using excessive force against citizens.

She compares her law degree to holding a black belt in karate. “Law school teaches you about how the big power machine works, government and courts,” she says. “It teaches you where to take the wrenches, throw it into the machine and slow it down or how to make it work properly to achieve justice..”

And achieve justice she has. Dating back to 1990, McGinn won a large settlement against the Albuquerque Police Department for the shooting of an unarmed Black man. Six years later, she won another case against APD over the fatal shooting of a suicidal man named Larry Harper; in addition to the monetary settlement for the family, McGinn secured policy changes in the department to help prevent similar acts of force against mentally ill citizens moving forward.

That last one made her a target, with the police department placing her picture on a piñata and taking turns whacking at it.

Swing away, boys: that’s not going to stop McGinn - who continues the work, recently handling a case on behalf of James Boyd, a homeless man in Albuquerque who was shot and killed by police officers in 2014. The shooting was caught on film, and District

Attorney Kari Brandenburg decided to prosecute the officers, a first in the city’s history. The police department responded by investigating Bradenburg and pushing to have her recused; she asked McGinn to take on the case as a special prosecutor.

McGinn originally declined, thinking the case called for a “real” prosecutor. She also doubted the case’s likelihood of success, figuring, “they’d probably be found not guilty in 15 minutes, which is what was happening all over the country.”

IT’S CLEAR FROM MCGINN’S VARIED AND IMPRESSIVE CAREER THAT SHE HAS A PURE LOVE OF THE LAW. FOREVER INTERESTED IN EXPANDING HER OWN LIMITS AND DIVING INTO UNEXPLORED AREAS, MCGINN FAMOUSLY TOOK ON THE CASE OF THE OLD WEST GUNSLINGER BILLY THE KID. Brandenburg tried all the other DAs in the different judicial districts in the area, and one after another, they declined. “‘Don’t even send us the file,’” McGinn recalls them saying to the DA, “‘because we don’t want the cops coming after us like they came after you.’”

She went back to McGinn: “If you don’t take this, it’s not going to get done.” McGinn took the case, all the way to trial.

The officers weren’t convicted in the end, but the trial itself - which ended in a hung jury - was still a victory in the long game. “We moved the goal line towards justice,” says McGinn, who noted that the trial had a positive effect on the police department, which had been notoriously trigger-happy.

“At the time, the APD was number one per capita in terms of killing citizens,” says McGinn. “They were shooting someone dead once every five-and-a-half weeks.”

When asked about the high kill rate during depositions, the officers responded: “‘Well, we’re better

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

165

500 THEN THERE’S THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE. IF McGINN WINS HEARTS WITH HER COZY-CHIC FASHION AND GENTLE GUIDANCE WALKING A JUROR THROUGH THE FACTS, HER FEROCITY, WIELDED PURPOSEFULLY, CAN HAVE ASTOUNDING RESULTS: SHE FAMOUSLY MADE A WITNESS THROW UP ON THE STAND DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION. shots than the other police department,’” recalls McGinn. “‘When we shoot them, they stay down.’”

After trial, with police officers on the stand for charges of second-degree murder for the first time in the state’s history, the department’s kill rates fell dramatically. “They realized, ‘we’re not going to get away with this without somebody trying to hold us to account,’ ” says McGinn. “That’s the real victory.”

McGinn’s aplomb in the face of institutionalized wrongdoing comes back to a genuine hunger to make the world a better place. She realized early on that lawyering is the best recourse to affect real change.

“It’s the greatest job on the planet. I can’t imagine doing anything else,” she says.

It’s clear from McGinn’s varied and impressive career that she has a pure love of the law. Forever interested in expanding her own limits and diving into unexplored areas, McGinn famously took on the case of the Old West gunslinger Billy the Kid. “Our governor [Bill Richardson] had been asked to pardon Billy the Kid,” recalls McGinn. “And he said to me, ‘There’s no lawyer who will represent him,’” not the least because there was no money in it, his crimes are a century-and-a-half old, and, well, he’s one of the most notorious criminals in American history.

So why did McGinn take it on?

“It was just so much fun.” She spent months researching his case, and decided he deserved a pardon because he had been promised one for testifying in a murder trial, but never received it. Richardson considered her facts but decided not to issue the pardon; although he has since said privately to McGinn that he regrets it. The decision was probably more political than anything else.

“It was really Billy the Kid versus law enforcement,” says McGinn. “He’s been dead for 144 years and you’re still fighting the Lincoln County ward.”

If the case sounds personal to McGinn, it’s because 166

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

she genuinely believes in the inherent right to justice in this nation and views the legal profession as one of the most profound ways to affect change. She talks about lawyers as “verbal alchemists,” meaning: “You take someone’s story, and if you tell it truly and well, you turn it into justice.”

Despite her clear and lasting impact on the lives of citizens through her verdicts and often closelywatched trials, McGinn is of the mindset these days that, “the only thing that lasts is the knowledge that you pass on to other people.” Influenced, no doubt, by her own experience early on as a young litigator devoid of female role models, McGinn is passionate about teaching and giving talks, mentoring and encouraging young women to thrive in the field.

“I think women have the advantage in the courtroom,” she says. “All of the stereotypes are in our favor,” including the antiquated notion that a woman, by nature, needs protection. That notion can make any self-respecting feminist bristle, but rather than fight the rain, McGinn dances in it, exploiting the tired old prejudice to her advantage - and encouraging others to do the same.

In her experience, being the sole female litigator in a courtroom puts her in the perceived position of the underdog, so that others in the room start rooting for her. She has stories of jury members cheering her on, standing up for her when opposing counsel was bullying her, even buying her gifts in the middle of trial.

Then there’s the element of surprise. If McGinn wins hearts with her cozy-chic fashion and gentle guidance walking a juror through the facts, her ferocity, wielded purposefully, can have astounding results: She famously made a witness throw up on the stand during cross-examination.

The key to it all, she says, is simple (at least in theory): “You have to be true to yourself.”

Her fearless determination to be authentic, to forge a path for the feminine in a stubbornly male arena, is only growing stronger over time: This year, amidst a

500

global pandemic that is having an outsized negative impact on working women, she helped launch the revolutionary Athea Trial Lawyers.

Athea, named after the Greek goddess of wisdom and warfare, is an all-female legal association that includes some of the most accomplished trial lawyers in the nation. The group includes Deborah Chang in Los Angeles, Bibi Fell in San Diego, and Zoe Littlepage, Lisa Blue, and Charla Aldous in Texas. Each one of these women’s track records is individually impressive (Chang, Fell, Littlepage, and Aldous all appear alongside McGinn in our 500 Leading Plaintiff Lawyers guide). Together, they represent a powerhouse with potential to upend the industry.

The group is refreshingly deliberate about cultivating feminine traits for use in the courtroom. As their website declares: “Athea supports those fighting for a just cause – as well as those who use cunning and intelligence rather than brute strength.”

Athea’s members are dedicated, primarily, to winning cases for their clients. But they also have a keen focus on boosting female representation in the courtroom: They provide support to other litigation teams, including funding and access to their trademark trial graphics, so long as there is one active female trial lawyer on the team.

One of McGinn’s current cases, which she’s handling with others from Athea, is over an urban cliff collapse in San Diego County that happened last summer. A family was in the midst of celebrating the recovery of one of their matriarchs from breast cancer, when the cliffside above their heads crumbled away.

“They build all these houses on top of these cliffs, and they don’t do anything to stabilize them,” says McGinn, pointing to a persistent and unchecked problem with erosion on bluffs along the California coast. “In fact, the water from the houses running off it destabilizes it. But then they keep the beaches open.” The family members in the case who were left standing tried to dig out and save those who had fallen off the eroded cliff, but the cancer survivor died, along with her sister and niece. The heartbreaking case was filed in state court his summer.

McGinn’s caseload these days seems to follow a theme of extraordinary women who have suffered preventable tragedy: Another matter currently in her hands is justice for a 25-year-old woman from Uganda who was decapitated in front of her husband when a loose, improperly installed metal gate swung into her car as they were leaving a visit from Arches Na-

tional Monument earlier this year. The young woman, Esther “Essie” Nakajjigo, had founded a nonprofit community health center in Kampala when she was still a teenager, and hosted a reality television show popular in Africa that focused on empowering young mothers. She had raised $10M for charitable causes over her lifetime before her untimely, and entirely avoidable, death.

“She was going to be just extraordinary,” says McGinn, who is pursuing a $270M wrongful death claim against the National Park Service on behalf of Nakajjigo’s family, alongside Athea member Chang.

Forever a champion of women being women in the courtroom, McGinn has just one rule for her female mentees that might otherwise seem like fair ground: No crying in the courtroom. Men can get away with it, she says, but if a woman does it, the jury is suspicious, feeling like they’re being manipulated. So on the more emotional aspects of a case, McGinn bites her cheek and saves the crying for when she gets home.

Her ingrained professionalism buffeted her during perhaps the most challenging arguments of her long career. McGinn was in trial in Santa Fe last year, advocating for the young man who burned alive after being dragged by the semi-trailer, when her husband, former New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Daniels, was diagnosed with ALS and told he had about a year to live. She gave her closing arguments - without shedding a tear – and drove home, leaving her associate to take the verdict.

Her husband passed less than two weeks later. He was 76.

Her grief has been profound and immeasurable. But, ever empathetic, Randi talks about how the experience connected her with others, particularly anyone who has lost a close family member, as so many of her clients have. She has come to see death as the great equalizer. “The mortality rate is 100% for human beings. That’s the thing that connects us all,” she says.

Randi turned 65 this year and is looking forward to another decade or so of taking on interesting cases that make a difference in the world.

What advice would she give herself if she were to do it all over again?

“Don’t wear those stupid pants, first of all,” she quips.

Then continues: “You really have to find your own voice in the courtroom. Try your own things. But find your own voice and be true to yourself.

“I’ve had the best time just taking cases that I find interesting.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

167

Beginnings, Excitements, Mistakes

THE JOURNEY BEGINS B Y J O H N RY A N

I REMEMBER VIVIDLY WALKING INTO

subletted office space in downtown Los Angeles on July 13, 2005, to join Katrina Dewey and the unlikely group of folks who were starting Lawdragon, after I had wrapped up my reporting work for the Daily Journal. I said “hi” to my friends and sat down in a windowless office to begin research on the first-ever Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America, which required hundreds of phone calls to lawyers from around the nation across almost every type of practice group. This wasn’t easy. Our team knew lawyers in California but had fewer contacts elsewhere. Also, the name of our company was pretty strange.

“You’re from Law-what? Did you say ‘dragon’?”

It was absurd, but it worked. Most of the lawyers we called wanted to talk to us, and rarely about themselves. It contributed to a conclusion that has long been forming in my brain: Lawyers are pretty nice people. The Lawdragon 500 was immediately an excellent editorial product, and by 2006 many lawyers (or at least their firm marketing departments) really wanted to have their partners on the list.

The first issue is not unlike the print issues we continue to produce: Smart features, including a profile of famed entertainment lawyer Bert Fields (great photo, Hugh!), and a Lawdragon 500 guide that ranges from the more famous corporate-type lawyers to the often unseen advocates from the public interest crowd – and all types of lawyers in between. Our first Lawdragon 500 photo was Gordon Bonnyman of the Tennessee Justice Center; he still works there.

168

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

OK, some mistakes, or decisions that were arguably mistakes. Our opening party in September 2005 at the Geisha House in Hollywood was maybe a little too lavish. This might be just a hazy memory, but I think people were walking on stilts and there might have been some fire-throwers.

Back then, we did a print issue with a new 500 guide each quarter, and for some reason we chose as our second project that winter “The Lawdragon 500 Leading Judges in America.”

That’s when I first truly characterized a reporting project as “fraught with peril,”

From left to right: The infamous “Batman” cover; famed entertainment Lawyer Bert Fields; Gordon Bonnyman of the Tennessee Justice Center, the first attorney to be featured in the Lawdragon 500 print section; Donald Verrilli, then of Jones Day and pictured here with client Stanley Louis-Pierre, then of the Recording Industry Association of America, was among our first high-profile subjects in Issue I. (Photos by Hugh Williams)

and I’ve blocked most of those memories out.

(But it’s a great issue.)

An undeniable error: In the Fall 2006, after having survived year one, we chose to put on our cover just a dragon symbol – even though we had photographed at least two dozen of the nation’s most famous legal faces. Among the criticisms received were “It looks like you’re signaling for help from ‘Batman.’” That’s when I first understood why companies invest in focus groups for important decisions.

But anyway, we made plenty of good decisions. In 2008, we decided to focus most of our efforts on our website and produce just

one print issue per year featuring a Lawdragon 500 covering all practice areas. It wasn’t just the global financial crisis and the tremendous cost of print production. We started the company to create a more forwarding-looking digital brand with free content accessible to anyone. I guess that’s why we’re still here.

Also, let’s face it, we really rallied for the 2008 cover and made up for the Batman episode. This was the first time we photographed people in front of screens to create a compilation Vanity Fair-style, fold-out cover. Richard Posner, Paula Boggs, Bill Lee, Evan Chesler and Marty Lipton on the same center panel? Give me a break.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

169

Michael Abourezk Abourezk Law Firm Rapid City, SD

4

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

AGE

YEARS

A JOURNEY

From 2005 to 2009, Lawdragon only had one photographer — Hugh Williams — who traversed the nation tirelessly to photograph all of our Lawdragon 500 members.

OF HUGH Photos by Hugh Williams

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

5

6

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left page, top row: Judge Diane Wood (Chicago), Judge Richard Posner (Chicago), Walker Lack (Los Angeles). Middle row: Tony West (San Francisco), Paula Boggs (Seattle), Larry Sonsini (Palo Alto). Bottom row: Wayne Outten (New York), Victor Kovner (New York).

Right page: Tom Demetrio (Chicago)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

7

170

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left page, top: Kim Askew (Dallas); middle: Jock Smith (Montgomery, deceased 2012); bottom: Elizabeth Cabraser (San Francisco), Ted Mirvis (New York). Right page, top: Marshall Doke (Dallas), Jerold Solovy (Chicago, deceased 2011), David Kendall (Washington, D.C.); middle: Linda Listrom (Chicago); Bottom: Bob Joffe (New York, dec. 2010), Joe Jamail (Houston, deceased 2016 ), John Gibbons (Newark, deceased 2018).

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

171

172

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left page, top: Tom Moore and Judy Livingston ( New York), Vincent McKnight ( Washington, D.C.); middle: Steve Lane (New Orleans), Judge Shira Scheindlin ( New York): bottom: Tom Nolan (Los Angeles), Debra Poole ( Los Angeles). Right page: Joseph Cotchett ( Burlingame, Calif.)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

173

Diving into the

TALENT POOL Starting in 2010, Lawdragon began to work with photographers all over the country — with amazing results. Our industry leading publication is based on their artistry and the unbelievable talents of our magazine design editors over the decade: Joseph Shuldiner, , who tragically died of brain cancer in 2019; Sammy Elfatrany and Stephanie Blackman.

178

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BRYAN STEVENSON Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative and Professor of Law, Columbia University New York Photo by Alan Matthews

179

Left page, top: Carolyn Lamm (Washington, D.C.) by Sean McCormick; Steve Yerrid (Tampa, Fla.) by Melissa Lyttle; bottom: Karen Dunn (Washington, D.C.) by Eli Meir Kaplan.

Right page, top: Erica Berthou (New York) by Laura Barisonzi; Alec Karakatsanis (Washington, D.C.) by Eli Meir Kaplan; Kenneth Feinberg (Washington, D.C.) by Eli Meir Kaplan; bottom: Alex Romain (Los Angeles) by Amy Cantrell.

180

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

181

Left page: William Savitt (New York) by Laura Barisonzi.

Right page, clockwise from top left: Wanji Walcott (New York) by Laura Barisonzi; Natasha Harrison (London) by Chris Renton; Brian Pastuszenski (Boston)

by Ken Richardson; Tom Melsheimer (Dallas) by Justin Clemons; Morgan Chu (Los Angeles) by Dave Lauridsen; Martha Minow (Cambridge, Mass.) by Ken Richardson; Joseph Shenker (New York) by Laura Barisonzi.

182

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

183

184

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left page, clockwise from top left: Martha Bergmark (Jackson, Miss.)

by Thomas Beck; Erwin Chemerinsky (Irvine, Calif.) by Dave Lauridsen; Tom Goldstein (Washington, D.C.) by Eli Meir Kaplan; Paul Zumbro (New York) by Laura Barisonzi; Jennifer Keller (Irvine) by Dave Lauridsen; Max Berger (New York) by Greg Endries; Paul Geller (Boca Raton, Fla.) by Josh Ritchie.

Right page, clockwise from top left: Adam Streisand (Los Angeles)

by Amy Cantrell; Lisa Tsai and Bill Reid (Austin) by Justin Clemons; Rosemary Alito (Newark, N.J.) by Laura Barisonzi; Chris Seeger (New York) by Gregg Delman.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

185

Clockwise from top left: Patricia Brown Holmes (Chicago) by Michelle Nolan; Robin Panovka and Adam Emmerich (New York) by Laura Barisonzi; Charla Aldous (Dallas) by Justin Clemons; David Boies (New York) by Jennifer Pottheiser; David Lash (Los Angeles) by Amy Cantrell; Kathleen Flynn Peterson (Minneapolis) by Kelly Loverud.

186

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Top: Ellen Holloman (New York) by Dave Cross; Myron Steele (Wilmington, Del.) by Andrew Kahl.

Center, left to right: Philippe Selendy and Faith Gay (New York) by Laura Crosta; Bill Carmody (New York) by Erica Freudenstein; Sandy Leung (New York) by Laura Barisonzi. Bottom: Michael Elkin (New York) by Laura Barisonzi.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

187

188

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Left page, clockwise from top left: Frank Darras (Newport Beach) by Amy Cantrell; William Lee (Boston) by Ken Richardson; Gerry Spence (Jackson, Wyo.) by Greg Von Doersten; Glenn Gerstell (Fort Meade, Md.) by Eli Meir Kaplan; Nicholas Gravante (New York) by Gregg Delman; Anita Hill (Cambridge, Mass.) by Ken Richardson.

Right page: Patricia Glaser (Los Angeles)

by Amy Cantrell.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

189

TALES OF

TRAVELS FRIENDS AND

From the Gulf Coast to Guantanamo Bay

Y

ou can’t get very far without “friends,” which is loosely what we termed firms, organizations and individuals that took us seriously and allowed us to embed for a while for some serious reporting, even if they didn’t always like every word we published. Our guides were taken seriously in part because of the content we produced alongside them.

For our second print issue, photographer Hugh Williams and I spent a few days with Biloxi, Miss.based attorney Reilly Morse as he struggled to rebuild his practice (and life) after Hurricane Katrina. Very few times in my life have I seen that type of exhaustion etched on a person’s face, which somehow also conveyed unrelenting kindness and patience. Morse later started

Top: Attorney Reilly Morse surveys damage to his office and practice in Biloxi, Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. Above: Cravath, Swaine & Moore’s Evan Chesler. Left: On the road in Alaska. Photos by Hugh Williams.

190

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

working for the Mississippi Center for Justice, where he remains, now as general counsel.

Later that winter, the leader of one of the nation’s most elite firms, Evan Chesler, took me into his home north of New York City to begin the outlines of a profile of his stellar career at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A few months later I jogged in D.C.’s Rock Creek Park with Supreme Court icon Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General who had joined WilmerHale to lead its acclaimed appellate practice. As the weather turned again, I hiked in Juno with Eric Jorgensen

Left: Post Rock Creek Park jog with WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman. Above: Eric Jorgensen of Earthjustice. Below: A glacier near Juno, Alaska, one of many spectacular views seen while hiking with Eric Jorgensen. Photos by Hugh Williams.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

191

Top: Steve Yerrid, of the Yerrid Law Firm in Tampa, Florida. Inset: Client Allan Navarro, paralyzed by a misdiagnosed stroke, for whom Yerrid obtained a multi-million dollar settlemen.

Photos by Hugh Williams. Below: Mass graves at the Kigali Genocide Memorial in Rwanda. Photo by John Ryan.

192

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

of Earthjustice to profile the organization’s varied litigation against the Bush administration. Not too long after that I was sitting at a steakhouse with legendary Florida plaintiffs’ lawyer Steve Yerrid in Tampa, Fla., to write an in-depth feature article on his record-setting verdict for a client left paralyzed by a misdiagnosed stroke. (That trip ended with a scar above my right eye, but I have to keep that story secret for a while longer.)

Travel became more expansive between 2010 and 2013 with trips to South Africa, The Hague, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Rwanda to research and produce feature works on the challenges faced by post-conflict societies developing justice mechanisms for mass atrocities.

Since 2015, I’ve more or less been a commuter to Guantanamo Bay, where before the pandemic I was spending about 20 percent of my time, give or take. We’ve published maybe 75 stories on the government’s ongoing attempt to prosecute the five detainees accused of planning the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – which we expect to resume next year.

Guantanamo Bay courtroom sketch by Janet Hamlin. Photo by John Ryan.

In all of this, we have taken up an incredible amount of time of all types of lawyers, secretaries, communications professionals, public affairs officials, paralegals, victims and victim family members. We’re not always perfect, but we hope that, more often than not, we exude a certain level of appreciation for all the generosity sent our way.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

193

I WASN’T THE FIRST JOURNALIST

here to immerse myself in a big, complex, multiyear story, which is as much the terrain of Founder, CEO and Publisher Katrina Dewey. Her 2009 feature on the Delaware Court of Chancery, “I Heart Delaware Judges,” was based on two years of following around Delaware judges and lawyers both in court and in various lecture halls at law schools. It remains essential reading. So does her 2011 feature, “The Romantics,” about David Boies and Ted Olson teaming up to defeat the Prop. 8 gay-marriage ban in California, which eventually led to their 2015 Supreme Court victory in U.S. v.

Windsor. Katrina embedded herself with the California legal effort to produce a masterful article that used the Scopes monkey trial to frame the historic litigation.

In fact, in recent years, as I’ve become increasingly lazy (and consumed by Guantanamo trips, at least pre-pandemic), Katrina has taken the lead on the feature writing that sets the tone for the quality of our magazine. “Don’t Mess with Texas,” a 2017 feature on Susman Godfrey, remains one of our most widely read articles ever. Other gems include her extended Q&A with Anita Hill and a profile of litigation firm Reid Collins & Tsai in “How to Build a Faster Ferrari” in 2018;

REFLECTIONS ON

KATRINA

Katrina has taken the lead on the feature writing that sets the tone for the quality of our magazine.

and last year’s account of Cravath’s 200 years of bro bono Service in “Standing Tall,” along with her deft trend piece, “Poetic Justice,” explaining Chicago-based Keller Lenkner’s switch from litigation funding to plaintiffs’ work.

In reviewing this work I’m hit with the realization that my business partner is the superior writer, which is frustrating because she’s also a better editor. I almost always find it challenging to make sense of a day’s proceedings in the relentlessly complex Sept. 11 case at Guantanamo Bay. Katrina kindly accepts my pedantic nature and makes every story I file much better, usually by the time I depart for O’Kelly’s, the Naval Base’s Irish bar.

It’s a mix of versatility and tirelessness at which I’ve come to marvel, as she’s also the driving force behind our Lawdragon 500 guides – which is the driving force behind our company. Even internally we sometimes forget that Katrina spent the entire year of 2016 on a “Campus Road Trip” for our legal education coverage, touching ground at literally every law school in the nation – and handling all her other responsibilities from motel rooms and rental cars.

Lawdragon’s 15 years is really the story of Katrina’s resilience, which I rely on each week if not every day. Small businesses run into roadblocks constantly.

I try not to take it for granted that my friend either rams us through them or finds a clever way to tiptoe around that keeps the chains moving. I feel lucky to know that a phone call to (or, more likely, from) Katrina can make just about every problem seem surmountable, or at least not so important.

194

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

195

In a small business, you keep running into your past even as you continuously attempt

to plan for a future that is uncertain, daunting, exciting, full of opportunity. Given

the osmotic worlds of media and communications, we’ve witnessed the departure of many talented colleagues who now work at law firms – too many to name. Chief

among them is initial co-founder, steady-as-a-rock great friend and loyal Lawdragon supporter Robin Davidson, who has thrived at Skadden for many years now. Yet how amazing is it that our hybrid editorial assistant and database manager Michelle Fox

has been with us for the full 15 years? She has the patience of several saints, a master at avoiding our crankiness.

THE FUTURE As significant as 15 years feels, the 10-year anniversary might boast greater sig-

nificance. That is the year our new partner and director of business development, Carlton Dyce, joined us. We limped into 2015 like creaky veterans who would have retired if a pension had been available, then Carlton took the reins as player-coach

with the positivity of a rookie – despite having three decades of sales and product

experience at Martindale-Hubbell. The harder I leaned on Katrina to keep the business going and stay sane, the more she leaned on Carlton – and here we are, stronger

than ever. Our latest evolutions – a second magazine devoted to plaintiffs’ lawyers

and several more Lawdragon 500 guides for specific practices – are his doing. If he weren’t so damned nice, I’d probably resent the guy, as surely I would have quit by now. Our 15th year might rival the 10th year only because of Alison Preece, our new

assistant editor and social media manager who has vastly improved our output and morale. (And is the main reason I won’t quit this year.)

Some mistakes you don’t make twice, for example, having some giant party to cel-

ebrate an annual Lawdragon 500 guide. To be honest, though, earlier this year we talked about having an event this fall. Maybe not a gala, but a thank you dinner for some of the folks who have this edition of the magazine in their hands. It would have been nice, but 2020 had other ideas. Like many of you, we have our reasons for despising this past year. But we can also appreciate it for making us feel luckier than ever as a business to have the support of so many great people.

196

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

197

500 Sigrid McCawley BOIES SCHILLER (FT. LAUDERDALE)

500

LOOK IN HER EYES. TURN THE PAGE. ON FIRE.

THE GLORIOUS DEFIANTS Well before the worst year in our lives (FU2020), these lawyers were changing our world for the better. Because of who they are. How they did it. The risks they took.

They would not be deterred.

2020 was their time. Those who were not gloriously defiant in the face of unprecedented turmoil in health, social justice, politics and life were challenged – more than existentially.

To pursue justice when every odd is against you, our hats are off to this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. (Our masks, of course, are on. Please join us. We want to see you again.)

You want to talk badassery in the highest? Sigrid McCawley worked for years to ply Jeffrey Epstein from his pedophilic lairs, battling oh so many disgusting men who befriended him in ways sycophantic and far, far worse.

He may have thought his death was the end of the story. Proves he was pretty stupid all along. For McCawley, that was just one more hurdle to get justice for his victims.

Look at her face, and those of all the lawyers we so proudly feature here. And know that 2020 was a bitch. But we’ve got you.

See you in 2021.

PHOTO BY: JOSH RITCHIE

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

199

500

500 200

Matthew Abbott

Antonia Apps

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

MILBANK NEW YORK

Charla Aldous

Stephen Arcano

ALDOUS WALKER DALLAS

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Mary Alexander

Kurt Arnold

MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Samuel Alito

Lisa Arrowood

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

ARROWOOD BOSTON

Greg Allen

Kim Askew

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

DLA PIPER DALLAS

Catherine Amirfar

Noam Ayali

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kay Anderle

Baher Azmy

KELLER ANDERLE IRVINE, CALIF.

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEW YORK

David Anders

Rebecca Weinstein Bacon

WACHTELL NEW YORK

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Lauren Angelilli

Aelish Baig

CRAVATH NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 20 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

SIGRID M CCAWLEY ON TAKING DOWN JEFFREY EPSTEIN SIGRID MCCAWLEY HAD JUST RETURNED

from maternity leave in 2014, after giving birth to her fourth child, a daughter. She was trying not to dwell on the vague fears working mothers can have after time away from their careers: Am I still relevant? Where will I jump back in? Will I still be taken seriously?

McCawley spoke with her partner, legendary trial attorney David Boies. He said he had a client that could be a good fit for her, given her past work for abused and neglected children.

The client? Virginia Roberts Giuffre. A victim of Jeffrey Epstein, Giuffre had met the multimillionaire pedophile in 2000 through Ghislaine Maxwell at Mara-Lago, where her father worked.

Epstein’s connections and wealth had insulated him from serious punishment over so many years, with a prior investigation into his abuses by prosecutors in Florida resulting in a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 that left his victims without justice. By the time Giuffre approached Boies Schiller for representation in late 2014, the statute of limitations on the abuse had long run out.

Seeking justice would be an uphill battle, to put it lightly.

“I had no idea what I was getting myself into,” says McCawley, in an interview earlier this year – six years after she signed on to help Giuffre assess her options.

“I certainly didn’t understand the breadth and the depth of the trafficking.”

Few did. No one should.

Child sex trafficking is a bald-faced evil act, and the revelation that a massively wealthy and powerful man had maintained his operation for years, evading retribution, was a collective shock.

McCawley dug into the matter with a trademark ferocity – going way beyond uncovering the extent of the trafficking and abuse. She also had to uproot the entrenched systems of power that had allowed Epstein to operate undetected for so long.

“It was a very different world at the time,” says McCawley reflecting on the battle’s early years. At that point Epstein “had not been held accountable in any way.”

She set out to change that. First, she had to dive into the history of abuse perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell, before getting a shot at altering the future.

BY ALISON PREECE

The history is hard to hear. Giuffre was just 16 years old when she was approached by Maxwell at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where she worked as a spa attendant. Maxwell saw she was reading a book about massage therapy and approached her about becoming a personal, traveling masseuse for Epstein – no experience necessary.

They promised to employ her, educate her and support her. But the massages proved to be just a guise for sexual abuse by Epstein; before long, Giuffre claims she was being forced into sexual acts with others.

Giuffre’s story is now horribly familiar, as Epstein’s crimes and coverups have been extensively documented – in legal filings and the media – following his July 6, 2019, arrest in New York on federal charges for the sex trafficking of minors.

The previous investigation into Epstein began in 2005 after a 14-year-old girl told her parents she had been molested by a man at a mansion in Palm Beach. The Palm Beach State’s Attorney convened a grand jury and, under pressure from Palm Beach police, the FBI and federal prosecutors in Florida began to investigate. By 2007, a 53-page federal indictment was drawn up under the supervision of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. Key to the agreement was a provision that victims would not be notified. In addition, the agreement would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas cancelled. In early 2008, Epstein balked at having to register as a sex offender.

In June 2008, he pled guilty on state charges negotiated with federal prosecutors: one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of solicitation with a minor under the age of 18. The disgraced financier was ordered to serve just 18 months in a low-security jail, despite evidence of years of abuse against dozens of girls and young women. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County Stockade.

“He got off with a slap on the wrist,” says McCawley, noting that someone who had committed such sexual abuse against even one minor could face 20 years in prison. “Instead, he was practically on house arrest, allowed to travel to his various mansions by his private plane, and given all sorts of privileges that nobody gets.”

Litigation later uncovered details of the back-room deal. “We see the emails that are going back and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

201

500

500 M C CAWLEY DUG INTO THE MATTER WITH A TRADEMARK FEROCITY – GOING WAY BEYOND UNCOVERING THE EXTENT OF THE TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE. SHE ALSO HAD TO UPROOT THE ENTRENCHED SYSTEMS OF POWER THAT HAD ALLOWED EPSTEIN TO OPERATE UNDETECTED FOR SO LONG. forth between the prosecutors who are supposed to be protecting the victims, and Epstein’s lawyers,” says McCawley. “That’s when you see the government corruption. They should have been protecting the victims, but instead, prosecutors basically started working on behalf of the defense, with emails saying things like ‘How do we keep the victims from not knowing this information?’

“It’s beyond terrible. This is corruption at a high level of government.”

A petition was filed shortly after the plea deal was announced, seeking to force prosecutors to comply with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The following year, former federal judge and victims’ rights advocate Paul Cassell and Florida-based victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards filed suit on behalf of Does 1 and 2, accusing the government of violating the CVRA by not informing over 30 identified victims about the plea deal with Epstein – nor giving them a chance to oppose the potential settlement, as is their right. In 2011, they filed suit in federal court for violating the women’s rights, seeking as well to have Epstein’s plea deal thrown out.

Despite his status as a registered sex offender, Epstein’s wealth brought him right back to his previous behavior throughout the early part of the last decade.

He met with billionaires, presidents, university presidents and professors, while spending substantial time on Little St. James Island, also known as Pedophile Island. Meanwhile, however, his victims were starting to organize and, through amassing legal counsel, understand the scale of the abuse perpetrated against them – and so many others.

On December 30, 2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a motion in the CVRA case seeking to add Does 3

202

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

and 4 to the action. In the allegations to support their claims, Doe 3 named Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew among her abusers and included factual allegations.

“That’s when everything exploded,” McCawley says, with Dershowitz denying the allegations and saying Cassell and Edwards should be disbarred. The lawyers returned fire, filing a defamation suit against the Harvard professor. In return he filed a counterclaim.

At that point, McCawley was representing Giuffre “as a witness” in Dershowitz’s defamation case against Cassell and Edwards, for which she was subpoenaed.

“Previously, her complaint had said things like she was lent out to famous politicians, professors and royalty, and it was general without any names,” says McCawley. “In this filing for the first time, she identified by name her abusers.”

Denials from those accused have been rampant, aggressive and persistent. McCawley was brought on “in the middle of that firestorm.” She met with Giuffre in New York right away.

“We were trying to assess what was happening at the time, and then also protect her, but also vindicate what it was that she wanted to do,” says McCawley.

“One of the first things Virginia said to me was, ‘I just want the people who have harmed me off the streets.

I want these sexual predators off the streets.’ Primarily she was focused on Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”

McCawley was immediately sympathetic and knew there was a major wrong to be righted, but she worried early on about the legal recourse. “There was a statute of limitations, so pretty much every claim she could possibly bring was barred at that point,” says McCawley. In April, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra of Florida denied standing to Giuffre as Doe 3,

500

and ordered the allegations against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew struck from the record.

Florida. That’s part of the reason Boies thought she would be a good fit for this case.

“I remember saying to her, ‘Virginia, I’m not a criminal lawyer. I need to manage your expectations here.

We’ll do everything we can, but we’re living in a space where really at this point in time, it’s really your potential civil claims that we can take a look at, to see if there’s something we can do for you there.’”

“It was helpful I had a sympathetic ear, and understanding,” says McCawley, referring to the psychology and behavior of abuse victims. “Some people might not understand how someone like Virginia would have been a runaway and then fallen into the hands of someone like this, like an Epstein, and a Maxwell, that could manipulate them in a way that they did.

Her compassion for the victims fueled her legal strategy, and led her to an innovative tactic for pursuing her client’s claims.

When Maxwell made a public statement calling Giuffre a liar in regards to her abuse claims, McCawley knew she had found their hook. In the fall of 2015, McCawley brought a defamation case against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, giving her a direct route towards detailing the abuse without being hamstrung by the statute of limitations.

“The law in that space is still evolving,” says McCawley.

“In a defamation case there may be room for a denial.

But this was somebody who had sexually abused her, calling her a liar. The denial is different in the context of a sexual abuse case. It went into a space where the public would assume Maxwell had information that others didn’t know about. We said that was defamatory and Virginia had a right to defend herself.”

It was a brilliant work-around to an outdated legal restriction. “It was a defamation case, but in order to establish the defamation, you have to get into details surrounding the sexual abuse,” explains McCawley.

As the Maxwell case got up and running, McCawley built out her team. “Besides having the benefit of David’s great counsel, I had a small but fantastic allfemale team in Florida that included my incredibly talented colleague Meredith Schultz and my superb paralegal Sandra Perkins.”

The details uncovered during the process of discovery in a case like this makes for gut-wrenching work, particularly because of the scope and the duration of the crimes.

“They had been abusing young females for many, many, many years. This is the longest-running sex trafficking scheme in history that I’ve ever come across,” says McCawley.

McCawley had a familiarity with the exploitation and abuse of minors and sexual trafficking through past pro bono work in the area, as well as her involvement in ChildNet, which manages the protection of neglected and abused children in Broward County,

“I had exposure to those issues through my charitable work in past years, and was educated in the space, so it was much easier for me to understand what was going on and to have an immediate sympathy for them. I think that helped tremendously, because I didn’t have any of the hangups that I think a newer lawyer who hadn’t been exposed to that kind of work would have had.”

That compassion also kept her going through what seemed like insurmountable legal hurdles – particularly, that outdated statute of limitations on abuse cases. The defamation accusations were a stroke of genius, but that recourse wouldn’t always be available, and wouldn’t work for all victims even in this case.

“I sat down with David [Boies] at one point, and I was really frustrated in the case,” says McCawley. “I said to him, ‘This is so unfair. There’s victim, after victim, after victim, and most of them are now adults,’” meaning it was too late to bring these claims. “First of all, they were terrified of Epstein. He’s a threatening, powerful, vindictive creature. None of them were going to come out and say, ‘This person did this to me,’ particularly him.

“I said, ‘David, this is just wrong. How can this happen?

This just shouldn’t be the case when we’re talking about sexual abuse, that there would be this time limitation. That’s just bad law.’

“He said, ‘Well Sigrid, we’re just going to have to change the law.’”

They’re working on doing just that, establishing precedent in the case law and supporting victim advocacy groups as they lobby to extend the statute of limitations in various jurisdictions. Strides have already been made: Some states, including New York and California, have passed bills to extend the statute of limitations in civil cases, allowing sexual abuse victims to bring claims well into adulthood. Federally, updates were made to the Trafficking Victims Protec-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

203

500

500 204

Shannon Baldwin

Chad Baruch

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

JOHNSTON TOBEY BARUCH DALLAS

Jon Ballis

George ‘Gar’ Bason

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Peter Barbur

Lucia Bates

CRAVATH NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE BAYTOWN, TEXAS

Johnine Barnes

Martine Beamon

GREENBERG TRAURIG WASHINGTON, D.C.

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Barry Barnett

Matthew Bergmann

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Randall Baron

Sean Berkowitz

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LATHAM CHICAGO

Judy Barrasso

Steve Berman

BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

David ‘Chip’ Barry Jr.

Mitchell Bernard

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL NEW YORK

Scott Barshay

William Bernstein

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

MANATT NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

tion Act, which now allows for a 10-year window for bringing these claims.

he had somehow leveraged his wealth and connections to dodge the law one final time.

These are strong steps, at least, in the right direction.

“There’s a lot of skepticism surrounding what actually happened,” says McCawley. “The fact that the cameras weren’t working, he had been shifted from having a cellmate to not having a cellmate, the individuals who were supposed to be doing the rounds were not doing the rounds. There were a number of factors that just don’t pass the smell test. Things were definitely amiss.

“My position is that needs to be eviscerated,” says McCawley. “There should be no window on the amount of time that it takes someone to come to terms with their abuse and then bring that claim.

That’s the direction we’d like to see the law get to, and that’s what we’re working on.”

McCawley now represents eight victims in cases against Epstein and Maxwell, including Maria Farmer, who was one of the first to report Epstein’s and Maxwell’s abusive operations to any authorities.

“That was back in 1996,” explains McCawley. “They assaulted not only her, but also her sister Annie Farmer,” also now a client. “Maria was the first person to report it, but the reports fell on deaf ears. She actually made a series of reports in varying jurisdictions, and there was no traction on it.

“Then she got threatened by both Epstein and Maxwell, and she ended up going into hiding. Her story is just beyond tragic.”

McCawley is representing the Farmer sisters and other victims as they continue to seek legal recourse for the harms done to them, in a series of personal injury cases against the Epstein estate filed in New York federal court. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman has stayed the cases to give the attorneys and their clients a chance to settle their claims via the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Fund that was set up by a probate judge in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The SDNY cases, though stayed, remain technically active while McCawley pursues the claims from the Fund. Meanwhile, Giuffre’s defamation case against Maxwell settled for an undisclosed amount in 2017.

Epstein’s arrest in New York on July 6, 2019, on federal charges of sex trafficking was a hugely gratifying moment for the victims and their legal teams, but it was followed by a massive disappointment the next month when Epstein was found dead in his jail cell on Aug. 10.

Epstein’s death, deemed a suicide, was a difficult moment for McCawley and the victims. It was hard enough to accept that the man who had so long evaded justice had taken the ultimate escape before seeing his day in court; the sting cut deeper because of suspicion around his death – a whiff that

“I think that there’s been an investigation,” she continues, “but will we ever really know? I don’t think so. From my perspective, after having interacted with Epstein at varying times in person, in my view, he believed he was untouchable. There’s different sides of the camp, some believe he was assisted in that suicide. Some believe that he was given the liberty to be able to do it, and bought that liberty by paying people off. I don’t know that we’ll ever have the answer to that.

“The unfortunate part for the women that I represent is that they really wanted to see him have to sit in prison and be held accountable for what he did, and that was taken from them.”

But McCawley’s work to find justice for these victims is far from over. “My focus now is making sure that the women I have the privilege of representing have the ending to this that they desire,” she says.

Six years after diving head first into this sweeping, devastating, landmark litigation, McCawley is seeing the light.

“This year has been a wonderful one, because we’re on the other side of things,” says McCawley. “But the early years of this case were very dark. We had Dershowitz attacking us, Prince Andrew attacking us, Epstein, Maxwell, everybody was on the attack.

And the media was not friendly to us. Initially when I started representing Virginia, they were using words like, ‘Prostitute’ and ‘bad mother.’ They were reprinting things that were being said by others that were just horrific.

“It took a long time to battle back on all of that. But we knew we were right. We knew what had happened. We had all of that information, so it was just about changing that tide and getting the public to notice and pay attention.”

The tidal pull was helped along by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, which got under way a couple years into McCawley’s involvement in the case.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

205

500

500 “Once people started to listen to these prominent actresses that came forward and said, ‘I was assaulted.

I was assaulted. I was assaulted,’ people became more open to believing the victims that we represent who don’t necessarily come from the same background. Many of these girls were coming from very broken families, very difficult circumstances. It helped us to have that support of that movement.”

Andrew Villicastin, Sabina Mariella and Josh Schiller.

I’m able to do my commercial work and still manage this at a level where I still talk to each of the clients regularly. I’ve found a way to balance it.”

Does she think this is all adding up to a sea change in efforts to dismantle the entrenched systems of wealth and power that allow evil to exist unchecked?

“I owe them such gratitude,” McCawley says of her kids. “During the Maxwell case, I was in New York almost every other week, because Judge Sweet would hold the hearings in person. It consumed everything.” As they’ve gotten older, and the case exploded into the public view, they’ve come to understand and appreciate more about what their mother has been busy doing all this time. “My kids sacrificed a lot as well without ever complaining, and I’m so proud of them for that. They are incredible children.”

“I do believe that we are in a new dawn for holding the wealthy, the powerful, the politically connected accountable. I think the Epstein case was really the pinnacle of that. In one year, you see Acosta stepping down, Prince Andrew stepping down, Epstein being arrested. Now Ghislaine’s arrested. We are seeing I think a vast change in the government’s commitment to holding people accountable, regardless of status.”

There is a certain poetic justice to having a mother of four coming back from maternity leave, uncertain of her next move, only to find herself at the center of efforts to take down a wealthy pedophile who had eluded all attempts at capture.

McCawley worked largely pro bono on the case, part of a firm policy on sex abuse cases. The work consumed her, even as she carved out time for her commercial litigation practice. “There were some years that were better than others, I will say. Now I’m at a place where I have a much bigger team, a group of outstanding lawyers in New York including

Also in that balancing act are her four children. The youngest, born just before she took on the Epstein case, is her first daughter after three boys, two of whom are twins.

They, no doubt, are proud of her as well. After all, she had incredible odds stacked against her, she came up with brilliant and savvy legal strategies to push through outdated laws, and she continues to tirelessly seek justice for these victims.

What’s more, her heartfelt compassion for the women who suffered at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell has been, and continues to be, the ultimate driving force behind her work.

“At the end of the day,” she says, “I want these women to feel satisfied that they have found some peace in this, and some justice in this. That looks a little different for each person. But that’s my goal.”

“I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN A NEW DAWN FOR HOLDING THE WEALTHY, THE POWERFUL, THE POLITICALLY CONNECTED ACCOUNTABLE. I THINK THE EPSTEIN CASE WAS REALLY THE PINNACLE OF THAT…WE ARE SEEING I THINK A VAST CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT’S COMMITMENT TO HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, REGARDLESS OF STATUS.” 206

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

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

Ivy Kagan Bierman

Bruce Bowman

LOEB & LOEB LOS ANGELES

GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS

Frances Bivens

Ronnisha Bowman

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Lisa Blatt

Jennifer Bragg

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jerome Block

Richard Brand

LEVY KONIGSBERG NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Mary Bonauto

Leah Brannon

GLAD BOSTON

CLEARY GOTTLIEB WASHINGTON, D.C.

LaBarron Boone

Stephen Breyer

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

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

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

207

500 Geoffrey Harrison SUSMAN GODFREY (HOUSTON)

500

THE GREAT AND GRAND ADVENTURES OF

BY KATRINA DEWEY

GEOFFREY L. HARRISON IF CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN, STEVE SUSMAN WAS BEWILDERED. Before him stood the prodigy. The top first-year law student at the University of Chicago law school in the fall of 1989.

Yellow Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity sweatpants – right leg properly down at the ankle, the left one oddly pulled up to the knee. The white T-shirt was normal enough, but why was he wearing his red Champion Penn sweatshirt inside out?

And those shoes … Reeboks were one thing, but with Velcro closures?

A fraternity baseball hat on backwards. Because of course.

Ice ice baby.

The great and grand adventures of Geoffrey L. Harrison did not, of course, begin the day he met Steve Susman. And, to be complete, here is how the rest of that showdown went: Steve Susman: “Hey, how’d you like to work at the best law firm in Texas?”

Vanilla Ice’s poorly dressed cousin: “I’ll give you half my summer.”

The kid don’t play.

The life and times of Harrison have been set to song by his partners in an homage of “Hamilton”; recounted in countless bars and seaports worldwide; and captured in his own private compendium – a Valentine to Susman Godfrey, his home of 27 years and counting. For this written account shared with Lawdragon, think “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” as written by Jack Kerouac and hosted

by Anthony Bourdain: Wearing cowboy boots, a white shirt, dark blue suit, blind-justice suspenders, and a tie, I stepped off the elevator on the 51st floor at 8.30am sharp and threw in my lot with the folks here at Susman Godfrey, LLP. It was Monday, September 27, 1993. … Receptionist Marie Trahan greeted me without a flicker of recognition – a fine reward for all my hard work as

PHOTO BY: KAYCEE JOUBERT

a summer associate at SG in 1990 and 1991.

HR Director Madelyn Foster asked me to sign a letter acknowledging that my employment was “at will” such that the firm could terminate my employment any time, without notice, and without cause.

“It has been one hell of a fantastic ride, and the ride is yet young,” says Harrison in an extended interview this year. He has won countless victories on plaintiff and defense for insurers, oil and gas companies and global contractors accused of everything from pollution to oil spills to defectively manufacturing military gear to good old-fashioned contract breaches. He protected the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance and its LGBTQ safeguards. And while his practice has included disputes in Alaska, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Brazil, England, France, Greece, Morocco, Puerto Rico, Slovenia, Spain and Venezuela, it started off in downtown Houston.

That’s where, over a Treebeards’ fried chicken lunch, Lee Godfrey told Harrison he would be examining the next two witnesses in a hard-fought accounting malpractice battle against Deloitte.

That afternoon.

Just one month after Harrison started practicing law, he and the Susman Godfrey team won a verdict lawyers spend their whole careers hoping for: $77,685,000 against Deloitte.

That evening, Harrison learned the fine art of celebration Susman Godfrey style – in the wine room at Tony’s in Houston where they drank and sang show tunes until the accordionist packed up and the cows came home.

“One thing that I learned early from Lee Godfrey and Steve Susman and others was the importance of having not just fun, but a great time when you practice law, and the way you practice law, and the way you celebrate successes,” says Harrison. “It has stuck with me. I live it. I teach it. It’s part of what fuels my love for the firm.”

In truth, he had already picked up on the work hardplay hard vibe as a summer associate:

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

209

500

500 210

Brad Brian

Susanna Buergel

MUNGER TOLLES LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Kobi Kennedy Brinson

John Buretta

WINSTON & STRAWN CHARLOTTE

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Daniel Brockett

Angela Burgess

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Alex Brown

Karen Burgess

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

BURGESS LAW AUSTIN

Allison Brown

Spencer Burkholz

SKADDEN NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Eugene Brown

Sharon Burney

HINSHAW SAN FRANCISCO

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

John Browne

Dane Butswinkas

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Andrew Brownstein

Elizabeth Cabraser

WACHTELL NEW YORK

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Jacob Buchdahl

Christopher Caldwell

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

CALDWELL HAMMER LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

[Max] Tribble and Jeff Chambers had taken me out for a recruiting dinner at La Colombe d’Or. We spent 7½ hours, blew through the 1939 Armagnac, and made a respectable showing with the 1944. The maitre d’ tossed Tribble the keys at 2.30am and said lock up when you’re done.

I never saw the check but a somewhat flushed Tribble and Chambers took me aside the next day and said “If you don’t accept our offer, we’re finished at the firm.”

Limits were imposed, but only on how much was spent. Not on investment in the ties that bind, which Susman Godfrey does better than perhaps any other firm. “That story, it really sticks with you, and frames relationships. Max and I have been extremely close for 30 years. I think we would’ve been close even if we hadn’t finished off the ‘39 and gotten into the ‘44 Armagnac. But who knows? Maybe not. Maybe that’s what it all comes down to.”

Harrison spent the first years of his life in Wilmington, Del., where his dad worked as an engineer for DuPont.

His mom would pester his father: “‘Why don’t you go to law school? Why don’t you go to law school?’ Finally, my dad said, ‘Why don’t you go to law school?’”

She enrolled at Widener and transferred to the University of Houston when the family moved south during Harrison’s 5th grade year. His dad worked full-time as an engineer in the oil and gas industry by day and attended law school at night, becoming an intellectual property lawyer; Harrison’s mom practices family law.

A relatively good and responsible kid, Harrison sought an edge in basketball (lasted two weeks), and sartorial splendor (customizing the obligatory Polo shirt). At Houston’s Johnston Junior High and Bellaire High School, he found a perch in student government and competitive debate and oratory.

As a senior, he won the Texas state championship for extemporaneous speaking.

“I always thought the trophy could have been bigger,” says Harrison. He attended the University of Pennsylvania for undergrad, continuing his passion for the Wars of the Words.

Eighteen countries sent their best debaters to the World Universities Debate Championship – where he competed in parliamentary style debate. He traveled to three global speakfests: at University College in Dublin, Ireland; University of Sydney in Australia; and at Princeton University. Trivia: In his senior year, he and debate partner Brad Handler debated Ted Cruz

and his Princeton debate partner twice and won both times. “In fairness,” says Harrison, “we were seniors when Ted was a freshman and by the time Ted was a senior he and his partner won ‘team of the year’ and Ted won ‘speaker of the year’ honors.”

Double trivia: His senior year, Harrison and Handler took fourth in the world. “Which was great, although I think we got robbed,” he says.

On to the South Side of Chicago, accompanied by his then-rare laptop computer. Harrison excelled, graduating at the top of his class with law review and moot court honors. He garnered clerkships at Susman Godfrey and Fulbright; then New York and Chicago. After his 1L stint at Susman, he went down the block to Fulbright, where he luxuriated for six weeks in the corner office recently vacated by legendary David Beck, who had left to form his own firm.

Rarely one to say “Enough!” he clerked again after graduating, spending his third summer at Irell & Manella in L.A. instead of studying for the bar. He took two anyway: New York and Texas, all in the course of four days. He flew to Albany on Monday, met a friend for dinner at Sizzler, studied his notecards, took the New York bar Tuesday, flew to Austin, studied with UT friends, took the multistate Wednesday and the Texas bar Thursday and Friday. That night, July 31, was his birthday and some damage was done at The Oasis on Lake Travis.

Next to Jacksonville, Fla., where he clerked for Chief Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the 11th Circuit starting late August 1992. Within a month, Steve Susman rang.

Steve Susman: “Harrison, we want you to come work at the firm. This is a job offer.”

Geoffrey Harrison: “Steve, that’s great. Can I think about it for a couple of days and get back to you?”

Steve Susman: “What the fuck are you going to think about?”

Fair point. Harrison accepted. “I was attracted to the way that Susman Godfrey was plainly a great firm with wicked smart lawyers but was still hovering about on the fringes of respectability,” Harrison says. “Where there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors out there, we are pure fire.”

His substantial practice may best be defined set to the tune of B.J. Thomas’ “Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song”:

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

211

500

500 Timothy Cameron

Ricardo Cedillo

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DAVIS CEDILLO & MENDOZA SAN ANTONIO

Joshua Cammaker

Paul Chan

WACHTELL NEW YORK

BIRD MARELLA LOS ANGELES

Joseph Cancila Jr.

Peter Wilson Chatfield

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Carlinsky

Doris Cheng

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

Mats Carlston

Evan Chesler

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Bill Carmody

Robert Chesney

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW AUSTIN

James Carroll

Apalla Chopra

SKADDEN BOSTON

O’MELVENY & MYERS LOS ANGELES

E. Leon Carter

Jeanne Christensen

CARTER ARNETT DALLAS

WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK

Amy Caton

James Clark

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) 212

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Hey, won’t ya play another somebody done somebody wrong song And make me feel at home while I miss my baby, while I miss my baby…

“I represent the wronged and I represent the falsely accused, the supposed wrongdoers,” says Harrison.

“I have had the good fortune that it has worked out that my clients always seem to find themselves on the right side of the dispute.”

Take, for instance, Harrison’s journey to Oroville, Calif., to defend Aetna’s denial of coverage for environmental damage caused by Koppers, a creosote manufacturer. Harrison’s job was to cross-examine a plant manager who testified that while there was a bit of creosote on the ground, it was not much to be concerned about.

Harrison: “So you saw this creosote on the ground and you didn’t do anything about it?”

Witness: “No, not really.”

Harrison: “Why not?”

Witness: “I didn’t think it was that bad.”

Harrison: “You didn’t think it was that bad for your health?”

Witness: “Not particularly.”

Harrison: “Well, let me ask you this. Did you ever drink any creosote?”

Witness: “Of course not.”

Harrison: “Why not?”

Witness: “It wasn’t part of my diet.”

Harrison: “Not part of your diet? I’m sorry. Are you saying the only reason you never drank creosote was because it wasn’t part of your diet?

Witness: “Well, it wasn’t.”

That was one of 50 depositions Harrison took in his second year of practice. The following year, he bested Sullivan & Cromwell in a $150M Atlantic TeleNetwork securities trial in St. Croix federal court. Hurricane Marilyn’s 115 mph winds bumped the original trial date, so with only mild hesitation from a client who was also 50 percent owner, Harrison led the three-day bench trial against a Sullivan & Cromwell team.

From Harrison’s written account: Trial featured openings, closings, and eight witnesses. Our local counsel (who raised goats on

Geoffrey Harrison (left), Steve Susman and Max Tribble

the side) handled two witnesses and I handled everything else. The client rented us and our witnesses a grand house perched on an outcropping into the Caribbean, and I made aggressive use of the house’s in-ground trampoline as I fired myself up each day for my first unequivocally lead role at trial. …

Two weeks later, the St. Croix federal court ruled for us on all issues …. Two years later, the International Commercial Litigation magazine ranked Big Daddy Susman the No. 1 litigator in the world, ranked Godfrey No. 6, and ranked No. 3 the Sullivan & Cromwell lead partner I had crushed in St. Croix.

The defense of Enron affiliates took center stage as Harrison moved into his third year, spending months in Midland, Texas, defending multiple oil and gas producers every day. Alongside Susman and Neal Manne, Harrison successfully defended three of Enron’s pipeline affiliates that October.

In December, they found themselves in an arbitration defending the same affiliates against nearly the same claims and certainly the same plaintiff lawyers – and again won:

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

213

500

500 214

Shauna Clark

Eva Cole

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Paul Clement

Jason Collins

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Linda Coberly

James Connell

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

CONNELL LAW CABIN JOHN, MD.

Jeff Cody

Philip Harnett Corboy Jr.

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT DALLAS

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Lori Cohen

Kelley Cornish

GREENBERG TRAURIG ATLANTA

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Mary Louise Cohen

Christopher Cox

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Robin Cohen

Heather Cruz

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Steven Cohen

Stephen D’Amore

WACHTELL NEW YORK

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Vincent Cohen Jr.

Frank Darras

DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

That arbitration took place on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. During a lunch break on Saturday, Susman and Manne went to the partners meeting and returned 1 ½ hours later. Neither said a word to me or cast so much as a glance in my direction. We went back on the record and Susman rose and announced that I had just been elected to the partnership a year early. I was blown away and had to leave the hearing room. When I returned, Manne leaned over and whispered words in my ear that in many ways still capture the ethos of SG: “The good news is we made you a partner. The bad news is we f*cked you on your bonus.” Several of us went out that night, and Rivera gave me a bottle of DP and I drank it straight from the bottle.

Has any lawyer ever had such fun? Over so many miles and so many trials, the preening potential of “Yo, VIP, let’s kick it” became the loud, thumping “U Can’t Touch This.” The early success of Harrison, Tribble, Vineet Bhatia, Robert Rivera and now federal judge Charles Eskridge launched an annual bacchanal commenced the first time the young guns brought in real money. There was dancing throughout the restaurant and a riot over newfound wealth. Sidenote: Remember when making a million bucks was a cause for celebration rather than navel gazing over who made $1.2M? Not that the Susman Godfrey gang has rode in that rodeo class for many years now …

The joy in representing clients and winning – and making money – is matched by the friendship and the role he often plays as mentor to younger attorneys. Throughout Covid, as he and his closest colleagues have hung out in their Telluride aeries, Zooming while hiking through the mountains, he’s taken intense pride in helping to create the next generation of great Susman Godfrey trial lawyers.

Harrison’s story is particularly well told because he’s memorialized it – and because he has a crazy memory for what he ate, what hotel room he was in and what half marathon he ran in the midst of a trial.

But among Susman Godfrey’s partners, there is a singular revelry in the joy of the law and its spoils – however they are celebrated. That continued unabated from second homes far and wide throughout this annus horribilis.

Wine Zooms were held, mass litigations were marshalled, bike rides were taken, a spirit captured by Harrison’s favorite band:

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty If your cup is full may it be again Let it be known there is a fountain That was not made by the hands of men.

Steve Susman died on July 14. He fell on a bike ride in Houston with others from the firm. During his recovery, he was claimed by Covid.

When Harrison called from Telluride in late September, I was momentarily transported. Harrison’s relationship with Susman sprung from deep waters – and they continue to audibly echo in Harrison’s voice and vocal mannerisms.

“I loved Big Daddy and I miss him. Steve and I tried and won cases together. We jogged, traveled, dined, drank, cursed, and howled in laughter together. The Susman Godfrey family – partners, associates, staff, everyone, and most definitely me, included – owe our professional and personal happiness to Steve and to Lee Godfrey, too,” Harrison says. He and his wife Lauren and daughters Layla and Lilly, as well as Tribble, Bhatia and their families were quarantined in Telluride. They gazed at the mountains and more than one toast was made.

In true Big Daddy style, Harrison presented a contingency case at the next Wednesday meeting. “I was all red eyed and whatnot and I got through it and the firm approved the case.”

At the most recent “(Not So) Young Partners” celebration, Harrison had pre-ordered a mastodon-size tomahawk steak for Susman, whose appetite for life and its spoils were captured that night. The firm founder left such a profound imprint on those around him – the master of the F-bomb; the creator of plaintiff commercial contingency litigation; the partier in chief. The prankster who routinely made bets at firm retreats – $10,000 to swim in a shark tank, propose to a loved one, lasso a man-eating iguana. And who equally routinely did not pay, often following a legal objection over the currency in question, the definition of lizard or the like.

Talking to Harrison and his partners, those debts are paid – they always were. Forward.

There is a road, no simple highway Between the dawn and the dark of night And if you go no one may follow That path is for your steps alone Ripple in still water When there is no pebble tossed Nor wind to blow La da da da

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

215

500

500 Paul Geller ROBBINS GELLER (BOCA RATON, FLA.)

216

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PAUL GELLER ON HIS KNOCKOUT CAREER FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD. OR AT LEAST THE SCRAPPY. Which may have been what a 10-year-old Paul Geller was thinking as he bounced home from his Tae Kwon Do class in Old Bridge, N.J., dreaming of his hero, Bruce Lee. Maybe pulling a few moves on his way, inspired as well by tales of his grandfather, a Brooklyn prizefighter.

“Hey, your mother…,” shouted the neighborhood bully.

And those were the last words that boy ever spoke on the topic of Mrs. Geller.

Geller grew up fast and he grew up hard, forged in equal measure by martial arts and knockout brawls that epitomize heavyweight securities litigation and its combatants. The Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd name partner helped notch $17B in the Volkswagen clean diesel scandal; scored $1.575B from Household Finance (now HSBC); $265M in cash from Massey Energy for the West Virginia mine explosion that killed 29 people; $146M from Duke Energy in a securities fraud case; and, most recently a record-demolishing $650M from Facebook for Illinoisans whose privacy was invaded by facial recognition software.

The firm he founded in 2006 has become the biggest, baddest, brawniest securities litigation firm in the U.S., already snagging two billion-dollar settlements this year alone: Valeant at $1.21B and ARCP (now VEREIT) at $1.025B. Its impact on financial accountability is profound, as is its professionalization on a large scale of a corps of top lawyers taking aim at financial miscreants and bad guys.

As Bruce Lee said, “Fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. … [F]ear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

“A lot of people go through life and they have a job that’s never really the job they wanted to have or a job that they love. I love what I do,” Geller says.

His path began in Brooklyn and Old Bridge, where the family moved when he was young. Early on, he showed a preference for the path not taken, choosing, for example, to attend the University of Florida for undergrad rather than Rutgers, the lockstep choice of many a Jersey Boy, including his brother. Geller’s Gainesville dreams were cemented with a father-son

PHOTO BY: JOSH RITCHIE

BY KATRINA DEWEY

road trip showcasing tanned coeds, vast lawns and Frisbees. It felt right.

His big dream was to become a doctor. “I had surgery to repair a hernia when I was 12, and I decided I wanted to be a surgeon. At the time, I figured doctors really help people, and that was what I wanted to do,” he says. As he got older, Geller realized that lawyers help people, too, and a strong LSAT performance and the call of Emory Law School proved no match for the operating room.

After his second year, Geller remained on campus for a mandatory two-week intensive trial techniques program run by the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Geller was assigned to a San Diego lawyer who had recently won a rare securities litigation jury verdict – $100M against Apple: Patrick Coughlin, a former federal prosecutor.

Geller observed the legal stations of the cross after graduation – joining top Miami firm Steel Hector & Davis; moving to Proskauer’s office there to work with Howard Coates – but the die was cast. “I remember during the NITA training at Emory thinking [Coughlin] seemed like a really good lawyer. Little did I know that just over a decade later I’d be merging my firm into his and becoming his partner,” says Geller.

But first, he had a mountain of skills to accumulate.

Geller took his first deposition in 1993, a first-year associate. The battle was a small real estate dispute and Geller prepared by reading loads of other deposition transcripts and observing a couple of live depositions.

Always the good student, he started his deposition just like the lawyers in the transcripts he had read.

“I said to opposing counsel: ‘Let’s agree to the usual stipulations.’

“And he responded, ‘What are you referring to?’

“I said ‘Let’s just stipulate to the usual stipulations.’

“He said ‘Paul, I’ve never been in a deposition with you, so I don’t know what you mean by the usual stipulations.’”

Panicked, embarrassed, Geller learned to always be prepared for everything. No short cuts. “I learned not to rely on others, and to understand everything inside out, backwards and forwards. And I have never been caught unprepared again,” he says.

He was learning the moves, but still eyeing his opponent. That’s a key lesson in the martial arts that have

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

217

500

500 218

Susan Davies

Thomas Demetrio

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Dedra Davis

Kelly Dermody

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Jonathan Davis

Colin Diamond

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

Leslie Davis

Abigail Dillen

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

EARTHJUSTICE SAN FRANCISCO

Cari Dawson

Michael Dolce

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Ariel Deckelbaum

Diane Doolittle

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

John deGroote

William Dougherty

DEGROOTE PARTNERS DALLAS

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Karin DeMasi

Joseph Drayton

CRAVATH NEW YORK

COOLEY NEW YORK

Michael Demetrio

Daniel Drosman

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

shaped Geller as much the law – from Tae Kwon Do through Vietnamese Cuong Nhu, Chinese Kung Fu and the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu he discovered as a young lawyer and still practices today. Always know your adversary.

er alert – whether on the mat or at the bar, nothing good ever came easy. There will be blood. But also a remarkable Hollywood ending. For this million-dollar baby never gets cold-cocked.

Geller’s first full trial was the 1994 multimillion-dollar battle over the estate of A.L. Levine, a wealthy N.J. and Palm Beach real estate developer whose will had largely excluded Blanche, his longtime surviving spouse. “I did opening statement, closing statement, direct and cross examination of witnesses,” Geller recalls. He won a total victory and the widow got the pittance the will allotted her.

Geller’s beloved father said no. His father-in-law questioned his sanity. Coates, the Marine who was his mentor, said he’d regret it always.

His clients – A.L. Levine’s adult children who largely inherited the estate – took Geller to dinner at the Boca Raton Resort & Club to thank him. His feelings cauterized over foie gras. “Blanche Levine was not a short-term gold-digging wife. Although she was not the mother of his children, she was a nice and philanthropic woman who had been married to A.L. Levine for around 40 years,” he says. “I felt she wasn’t treated fairly and her lawyer was out-prepared, outworked, outsmarted and out-litigated.”

Every great journey begins with a small step, and Geller’s was representing his close friends, Bill and Stacey Stoddard, whose credit card company, Advanta, had promised – in writing – a fixed interest rate “for life.” You know what happened: Advanta increased the rate. Within months. “I got to see firsthand the rapid filing of copycat cases that I learned typically follow the filing of a strong class action,” says Geller.

He settled the case for $11M.

The foie gras moment brought home that perhaps his true adversary was himself. He had felt prior misgivings at Steel Hector, defending companies against hemophiliacs they had supplied a plasma-based drug that was tainted with AIDS. His clients had often procured the blood from inmates without testing it.

“I felt at the beginning of my career like I was on the wrong side, like I wasn’t fighting for the side that I truly believed in with my heart,” he recalls. “It never felt right.”

Easy to feel (for those who remain with a beating heart). Tougher to do something about it. And – spoil-

He did it anyway.

Paul Geller became a plaintiffs’ lawyer in 1996, just three years after becoming a lawyer. And, no small point: His wife, Leslie, said yes.

By the end of that decade, Geller and his firm – Cauley Geller – were shoulder to shoulder with the biggest names in plaintiff securities litigation, taking on a real estate investment trust, Prison Realty. Alongside Bill Lerach, Gene Cauley and Richard Schiffrin was another up and comer, Darren Robbins. Geller and Robbins had met previously, as opposing counsel, when Geller defended Brothers Gourmet Coffee in one of Robbins’ securities class actions. It was a pivotal moment in the securities litigation bar as it transitioned from first-to-file to an emphasis on institutional clients in the wake of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

HE WAS LEARNING THE MOVES, BUT STILL EYEING HIS OPPONENT. THAT’S A KEY LESSON IN THE MARTIAL ARTS THAT HAVE SHAPED GELLER AS MUCH THE LAW – FROM TAE KWON DO THROUGH THE BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU HE DISCOVERED AS A YOUNG LAWYER AND STILL PRACTICES TODAY. ALWAYS KNOW YOUR ADVERSARY. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

219

500

500 220

Alexander Drylewski

Jay Eisenhofer

SKADDEN NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Karen Dunn

Michael Elkin

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Kendall Dunson

David Elsberg

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Linda Marie Dunson

Adam Emmerich

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Daralyn Durie

Miguel Estrada

DURIE TANGRI SAN FRANCISCO

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brian Duwe

Ward Farnsworth

SKADDEN CHICAGO

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW AUSTIN

Karen Dyer

Eric Fastiff

CADWALADER ORLANDO

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Ryan Dzierniejko

Mark Ferguson

SKADDEN NEW YORK

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Jonathan Eady

Toria Finch

ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY ATLANTA

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD HAS GROWN TO BE THE LARGEST PLAINTIFF SECURITIES LITIGATION FIRM IN THE U.S. WITH MORE THAN 200 LAWYERS IN NINE CITIES. Geller learned how to jockey among plaintiffs, and was mesmerized by the moving parts of so many lawyers at the top of their game. The Prison Realty case provided Geller his first mega fee, and the advice to not let it change him. “I was in a room with a bunch of lawyers that were at the top of their game. I think that if you are able to distill the best from your mentors or others that you can observe and learn those lessons but also observe their weaknesses or errors and learn those lessons too,” Geller says.

Obviously when battling Goliaths, sometimes you lose. He observed that watching the world’s best Jiu Jitsu practitioners grapple, and once in a while fighting them himself. Whether taking a courtroom loss or “tapping out” in martial arts, “There is no shame.”

“In Jiu Jitsu, I spar with really tough guys who fight for a living. And when you grapple at that level, you’re eventually going to get caught in a choke or joint lock, and you tap out. Tapping isn’t quitting, it’s part of learning,” he says.

Noted Miami trial lawyer Stan Wakshlag beat Geller in a 2002 bench trial on behalf of Wackenhut shareholders left out in a merger. Geller knew the battle was uphill and the opponent well-represented, but still thought he was right on the facts and the law.

“To this day I just don’t think the judge understood our case. It was really a great lesson that you have to boil things down to a very understandable story, and I’m not sure I did a great job of that.

“It’s another lesson that I’ve learned in Jiu Jitsu: I’m pretty good at what I do, but I’m not infallible. I’m human. There will always be someone smarter, someone stronger, and yes, someone better. So if you really go for it, in a sport or in your job, you’re gonna take some Ls along with your Ws.” The point of tapping out – of understanding a loss – is to engage in the next bout, the next case, the next victory. And let’s be clear, while Geller gained the wisdom only learned from being knocked down, his incredible tenacity and competitiveness has made loss a rare experience.

After all, the point is to help people.

And to win. Which he did in 2004 for a group of emergency room physicians who were suffering from “slow pay and low pay” from major insurers, violating a Florida statute governing reimbursement of emergency medical services. Thrown out by the lower court, Geller appealed and faced off against one of the nation’s preeminent appellate lawyers, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn.

“I was still a relatively youngish lawyer arguing against such a big-name, experienced appellate lawyer – and the one trying to reverse the lower court always has a tougher time on appeal,” Geller says. He won.

“It is really important to stay humble and hungry, but there’s nothing wrong with having a little confidence knowing that the guy across the mat or across the courtroom ought to be a bit worried,” he says. “Going against me in a Jiu Jitsu match or a litigation is never going to be easy.”

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has grown to be the largest plaintiff securities litigation firm in the U.S. with more than 200 lawyers in nine cities. Its impact has been extraordinary, winning billions for consumers in an ever-widening range of cases, from the largest consumer class action recovery ($17B against Volkswagen) to the largest securities class action recovery ($7.2B in Enron). It is, wall to wall, stocked with some of the best trial talent in the U.S., including many former prosecutors.

The firm is all business and a tight group, moving teams to cities for trials and rarely, if never, blinking. The irony of it all is that the politically motivated PSLRA that was intended to kill them only made them stronger. It shed the excesses of the early securities litigation practice and replaced it with a strike force needed to take on financial fraud and chicanery that continues to run amok.

“We have fantastic trial lawyers that are always chomping at the bit to take cases to trial,” says Geller, from Coughlin to Mike Dowd, Dan Drosman, Jason Forge, Rachel Jensen and Jim Barz. The bench is deep and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

221

500

500 222

Steven Fineman

David Fox

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Julie Fink

Ramona Franklin

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Ora Fisher

Todd Freed

LATHAM MENLO PARK, CALIF.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Fidelma Fitzpatrick

Agnieszka Fryszman

MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE, R.I.

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Wendy Fleishman

Vijaya Gadde

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

TWITTER SAN FRANCISCO

Jodi Flowers

Sergio Galvis

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

William Fogg

James Garner

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

Keith Forman

Steve Gavin

WAIS VOGELSTEIN BALTIMORE

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Katherine Forrest

Faith Gay

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

full of true specialists. Geller’s done it all – from drafting complaints to client development to handling appeals – but his best and highest use is to help run the firm and organize large cases at the outset and settle difficult, complex cases.

He also sets the tone, ensuring the firm is run in a fiscally conservative manner without litigation funding or loans. Geller has nabbed more than a few headlines. A few years ago for saving a woman and her dog from two pitbulls (professional respect?).

And earlier this year, he made clear his disdain for other plaintiff firms that took taxpayer funds from the Paycheck Protection Program. “Gandhi said ‘There is enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed.’ I am very proud we did not take and did not consider taking that money.”

Another point of pride is Robbins Geller’s successful representation of defrauded consumers in the class action against Trump University. The firm won a $25M settlement and did not seek a fee. “I think it says a lot about who we are,” Geller says.

Robbins Geller makes a point of putting its money where its mouth is across the board. Case in point, Jaffe v. Household, which brought in $1.575B in 2016 for predatory lending practices. It took 14 years of litigation and yielded the largest ever settlement following a securities fraud class action trial; the largest securities fraud settlement in the 7th Circuit; and the seventh-largest settlement ever in a post-PSLRA securities fraud case. The firm filed the case in 2002, took it to trial against Household International and a handful of executives who made false statements about the firm’s financial results. A jury returned a multibillion-dollar verdict for the plaintiffs in 2009.

It took seven more years, with a reversal on appeal and $35M in out of pocket expenses – unalloyed by litigation funding or loans and not even including lawyer time. The team was ready to go when it settled the morning of jury selection in the retrial.

Among Geller’s recent cases of which he’s most proud, was Massey, in which he was able to extend his expertise as a securities litigator to get justice for the “human capital of the miners and their families.”

As co-lead counsel, he helped guide the securities class action to focus on the 29 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. “Massey had touted its safety record in all of its public filings but had engaged in a deeply rooted effort to cover up safety issues and to lie to government safety regulators,” Geller says. In addition to the $265M

all-cash settlement the CEO, Don Blankenship, was sentenced to a year in prison for conspiring to violate federal mine safety laws.

Today, Geller regularly serves as part of larger leadership teams, as he did in Volkswagen, EpiPen, Facebook Biometrics, Kehoe v. Fidelity, and Sony Gaming Networks. None, however, are bigger than filling that same role in the monstrous opioid case, representing the State of Maryland as well as municipalities from the City of Los Angeles to the City and County of San Francisco, and his hometown of Broward County, Florida. It is a full-time case and has been for the past three years.

“It is about an enormous public health crisis. The opioid crisis doesn’t pause for the Covid-19 pandemic,” says Geller, whose team includes Aelish Baig and Mark Dearman. “So we are litigating about an ongoing health crisis while simultaneously living through a different and scary public health crisis.” More frightening still, experts caution that the anxiety of the coronavirus crisis may lead to an increase in opioid use.

At 52, Geller’s achievements outstrip the imagination, monetarily, in impact and legal prowess. And yet in the midst of a pandemic, he endured surgery necessitated by the years on the mat while still mediating cases and pushing forward against the bad guys. For if he is clear on anything – and he is crystal on his life, his career, and what makes it all go round – it is that we live in a world where there are good guys and bad guys. And without vigilance, the little guy doesn’t stand a chance.

In his Jiu Jitsu academy, he always wants to take on the toughest guys in the room – the pro fighters, the competitors. When he looks in the mirror, that’s the battle he sees every day with the defense side of the bar.

“Win or lose, white-shoe defense lawyers can count on that salary, that direct deposit, hitting their account twice a month. But plaintiffs lawyers need to win to eat,” he says. “We take that chance. And it’s analogous to fighting. The majority of people won’t do it; they run from the fight, because they don’t want to take that chance; the stakes are too high; they don’t want answers to those questions we all ask ourselves at some point – am I good enough?

How do I stack up?

“I’ve always been willing to put it on the line, to get those answers,” says Geller.

“The key to immortality is living a life worth remembering.” Bruce Lee.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

223

500

500 Johnine Barnes GREENBERG TRAURIG (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

224

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

JOHNINE BARNES JOHNINE BARNES TAKES A BUSINESS-MINDED

approach to her employment law practice, working closely with executives to implement structures and policies that will keep them compliant while supporting the larger goals of their companies. And her experience as a litigator goes beyond labor and employment – she’s tried cases over trade secret and property interest disputes, among others – which gives her deeper insight into the potential effects of certain decisions and enables her to help clients make the best strategic choices.

Lawdragon: Will you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment arena?

Johnine Barnes: I consider myself a true labor and employment lawyer. I had the good fortune of being mentored and trained by the first female to serve on and chair the National Labor Relations Board and serve as the head of the Wage and Hour Division, Betty Southard Murphy, during a time when employment discrimination laws were being developed.

Thus, my practice has developed with a good mix of employment litigation, administrative/regulatory work and traditional labor work. Today, I continue to have a mix of counseling and compliance work, both labor and employment, and litigation work, including administrative claims, in my practice. However, the majority of my work tends to be more counseling and compliance in employment discrimination laws, and in the government contracting area.

LD: How is the coronavirus impacting your practice?

JB: The current crisis is impacting my practice by transitioning it to 80 to 90 percent compliance. I am assisting clients with compliance issues such as developing and changing laws as they address the effects of the pandemic on the workforce and businesses, for example, testing, furloughs and layoffs. Additionally, I am engaged in more cross-practice client work due to the varying subjects involved in the statutes addressing the effects of the pandemic on the economy.

LD: How is the coronavirus impacting your firm or the way you do business?

JB: My firm is working remotely, like most businesses.

Navigating through this pandemic has made my practice more efficient in some ways as I am spending less time traveling and able to accomplish many of the same tasks by video-conferencing. I am able to

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

BY ALISON PREECE get more work done with less traveling and also able to tend to many personal tasks that are left undone while traveling. Although, I still prefer the human interaction of my practice, and believe that the human interaction is essential to effective business dealings.

LD: What is your most important piece of advice for clients right now?

JB: Right now, I am advising clients to be flexible and stay patient. There is a lot that we do not know about the virus. Now that we have moved past the initial changes with social distancing and workforce management, businesses need to make decisions with long-term impacts in mind. This will require balancing medical and social sciences, constant changing practices and developing laws. The only thing that is clear in this pandemic is that this is going to be a marathon and not a sprint. And, we need to be prepared to cross the finish line together.

LD: What first drew you to develop an employment practice?

JB: I grew up in the Midwest when the steel and manufacturing industries were robust. My father worked in a steel mill for 46 years, holding positions on the line and in management throughout his career. The steel mill at which he worked was one of the first steel mills with an ESOP [Employee Stock Ownership Plan]. I had the opportunity to see first-hand the inner-workings of labor/management relations, and how industries change over time. This, along with the hilariously inappropriate work jokes that my father would tell at the dinner table (and make my mother cringe) sparked my interest in labor and employment law. It is this mix of people dynamics and business that interested me in developing a labor and employment practice.

LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying?

JB: I enjoy practicing in the area of labor and employment because it encompasses a human aspect intertwined with business and law and thus, is continually evolving and changing. Additionally, I like that there is a good mix of transactional and litigation work in the practice area.

LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, is there one matter that stands out as particularly interesting or memorable?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

225

500

500 226

Jonathan Gdanski

Elaine Golin

SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES FORT LAUDERDALE

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Paul Geller

Roberto Gonzalez

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eric George

Charles Googe

BROWNE GEORGE LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Adam Gerchen

Neil Gorsuch

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ilene Knable Gotts

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

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Robert Giuffra

Brent Goudarzi

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

GOUDARZI YOUNG GILMER, TEXAS

David Goldschmidt

Elizabeth Graham

SKADDEN NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

Sandra Goldstein

Nicholas Gravante

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Thomas Goldstein

Angela Graves-Harrington

GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL BETHESDA, MD.

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I ADVISE CURRENT LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS TO GET AS MUCH PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WHILE IN LAW SCHOOL AS POSSIBLE. JB: I have worked on quite a few interesting matters throughout my career. One of the most interesting matters on which I have worked is the representation of a foreign sovereign in a matter involving a foreign sovereign employee who had misappropriated money and laundered the same to U.S. citizens.

The matter involved representing the interests of the foreign sovereign in the criminal prosecution of the foreign employee in the United States, as well as an internal investigation into the manner in which the money was misappropriated and to where it was laundered. My work also involved assisting the foreign sovereign in changing its policies and procedures to put in safeguards against such employee misconduct in the future, and to bring the same in compliance with U.S. law to the extent the same would apply to certain relationships.

LD: Have you received any recent recognitions that have been particularly meaningful to you?

JB: I was honored and humbled to be listed on the Human Resource Executive 2019 report as one of the “The Nation’s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys – Top 100.” I know that this recognition, in part, is due to the opportunity that I have to provide legal services to clients, and to practice law collegially with other great attorneys and executives. Likewise, I always appreciate when a client contact asks and wants me to interface with his or her Board and/or executive management team when addressing human capital issues in regard to strategic goals or outlooks of the client. I have been asked to do so twice within the last 18 months.

Additionally, I appreciate when a client asks me to work on the planning and preparation for an event at which the client is being honored, like a gala. In this instance, I feel like the client has garnered enough trust in me through my legal work for it and thus, trusts that I also will make sure that all professional matters for the client are successful. And, I am appreciative to be included in the celebration of the client’s achievements.

passing needed amendments to current employment laws, the courts have been left to address many changing areas of law. Unfortunately, this has resulted sometimes in inconsistent interpretations of laws across jurisdictions. For national and international business, this requires constant changes and review of existing policies and procedures.

Additionally, administrative matters are also increasing. Again, as ambiguity or lack of expansion of employment laws exist, administrative agencies have attempted to enforce new and/or existing regulations absent statutory mandate.

LD: What does your current workload look like?

JB: In addition to my consistent client advice and counseling matters, I am currently handling whistleblower and employee misconduct matters. Additionally, due to my trial experience, I also am involved in litigation that does not involve employment issues. One beneficial experience, that I thought was a burden at the time, but my mentor required I have in developing my practice, is trial experience. Because discrimination and harassment matters were (and are) rarely tried, I developed my trial practice trying medical malpractices cases, in addition to employment litigation. I was put on medical malpractice cases because they rarely settle and more often than not, will contain most issues that arise in complex litigation.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in employment law?

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your employment practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days?

JB: As I mentioned, I always had an interest in labor and employment law due to my upbringing. However, my participation in the Washington Center program solidified my desire to practice labor and employment law, as opposed to being a public servant. My undergraduate degree is in political science and economics. At one time, I entertained the thought of being a public servant. After interning in Congress as part of my participation in the Washington Center program and seeing the bureaucracy of government, I finalized my decision to attend law school with aspirations to practice administrative law in the labor area.

JB: Review of employment policies and procedures are keeping me busy these days. With Congress not

LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that influenced your law career?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

227

500

500 228

Lori Chambers Gray

Alan Halperin

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Salvatore Graziano

Claudia Hammerman

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Mark Greene

Erica Harris

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Nicholas Groombridge

Geoffrey Harrison

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Benjamin Gruenstein

Natasha Harrison

CRAVATH NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER LONDON, U.K.

Melinda Haag

Christian Hartley

ORRICK SAN FRANCISCO

MAUNE RAICHLE ST. LOUIS

Richard Hall

Stephen Hasegawa

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO

Caitlin Halligan

Ed Haug

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

HAUG PARTNERS NEW YORK

Serena Hallowell

Michael Hausfeld

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

JB: I worked while I attended college and also through law school. I interned at a law firm in Northeast Ohio after my junior year in college. This experience helped solidify my interest in the practice of law. During my last year in college, I interned for the City of Cleveland City Council Chairman. This experience, coming after having interned on Capitol Hill in the Washington Center program solidified my interest in going to law school, as opposed to working in the public sector.

LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?

JB: I advise current law school students to get as much professional experience while in law school as possible. Because the law is ever-changing and businesses are global, it is important that lawyers not only know the law, but also his or her client’s business and trends impacting the same. Thus, when doing a legal analysis, lawyers now must be able to give clients legal and practical advice based on the law.

Additionally, for law students who know that they want to practice in litigation, it is imperative that they take a clinic and/or several writing classes. I was fortunate to take trial tactics from Professor James McElhaney while in law school. I still have his trial notebook text, and Strunk & White, on my bookshelf. There are several trial tactics and preparation methods that are tried and true, and these should be learned and practiced in law.

LD: Can you talk more about the mentors who helped shape the course of your professional life?

JB: I have been blessed to have great mentors throughout my professional career. I have tried to navigate my life like the law, to build on knowledge previously espoused. One of my first professional mentors was Owen Heggs. Among other professional accomplishments, Owen was a partner at Jones Day. When I looked at summer associate programs during law school, Owen did not encourage me to come work with him at Jones Day. He did not for two reasons. First, he thought that I would get first hand professional experience at a smaller firm. Second, he was not able to be a champion for me at Jones Day, as he was suffering from an illness that tragically took his life before I graduated law school. Owen explained to me that an attorney needs to have a champion or supporter to help him or her develop and succeed in a law firm.

His reasoning for what I should look for in law firm employment was good advice, also as to some elements needed to develop a successful law practice.

The training and mentorship that I have received over my professional career have been invaluable. And, I have kept that knowledge bestowed by Owen and other mentors with me.

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

JB: I describe my style as a counseling partner with clients. I think that it is important to know your client’s business and trends in their industry. When I counsel clients, I give practical legal advice that will help the client achieve its objectives, and also advise as to potential liabilities. Additionally, having trial experience is very valuable because I have a different perspective on the potential effects or liabilities of the implementation of certain policies and procedures.

For instance, one client wanted to change the culture of its workforce and make the workforce more productive and forward thinking. In doing so, the client implemented new policies and procedures that worked toward these goals and were going to be enforced. This was different from the past practices of the client. In assisting the client in this process, I advised the client that given the litigious nature of society, the changes would result in an increase in administrative claims, as well as increased claims within its internal grievance procedures. And, it did.

Throughout this process, I was mindful of the need to keep the client’s legal fees down as this would be an area of scrutiny in the management. So, as part of the implementation on the new policies, I trained the client to be able to address certain administrative claims on its own, for example, workers’ compensation claims, and also assisted in revising its internal grievance procedures to make it more effective to resolve most employee grievances internally. It is that full-circle practical legal advice that clients need in today’s cost pressure environment.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office?

JB: I like to spend time with my family, engage in extreme sports, adrenaline rush activities such as sky-diving, and traveling. I ran the 2019 New York City Marathon, my third marathon.

LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities?

JB: I enjoy working with programs for disadvantaged youth and also mentoring programs for young women. I work or have worked with several organizations to help empower African American youth and young women in particular.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

229

500

500 Richard A. Sayles BRADLEY (DALLAS, TEXAS)

230

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

RICHARD A. SAYLES IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYONE WHO LIVED IN

Gatlinburg, Tenn., in the mid-20th century was in tourism, one way or another.

And Dick Sayles’ father, Hall, was no exception.

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park was created in 1934, straddling the gorgeous swath of Tennessee’s border with North Carolina – and causing explosive growth for the hamlet of 1,300 full-time residents who began to cater to travelers with restaurants, hotels and gift shops.

Hall Sayles was a pioneer of the development, and operated a motel and a gift shop.

He wanted something different, however, for his son, who would attend the same high school from which country music legend Dolly Parton graduated.

“When I was probably 6- or 7-years old,” Dick Sayles says, “my dad, who was a brilliant man, said, ‘Son, I think you ought to be a lawyer. If I had to do it all over again, I’d be a lawyer.’”

Sayles was still too young to know what being a lawyer actually meant, but when “my dad said that,” he recalls, “my mind was made up.”

After earning his undergraduate degree at Vanderbilt, Sayles went on to complete his law degree at the University of Houston and found the firm of Sayles Werbner, which was acquired by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings in 2019.

Along the way, he handled more than 150 jury trials and won 12 verdicts of $1M or more, including a $1.67B patent infringement award for Johnson & Johnson involving Abbot Laboratories’ drug Humira, a treatment for conditions from arthritis to Crohn’s disease. One of the most well-versed and respected trial lawyers anywhere, every conversation with him offers a master class in persuasion.

Lawdragon: It’s amazing that you knew at such a young age what you wanted to do. Do you have any idea what your dad was thinking about when he suggested you become a lawyer?

Dick Sayles: I’m sure my dad was, on the IQ scale, way above genius. He was probably one of the smartest people I’ve ever encountered in my life and retained everything that he ever read or saw or heard.

He was just remarkable.

PHOTO BY: JUSTIN CLEMONS

BY KATRINA DEWEY He was one of the pioneers of Gatlinburg, one of the very first folks to come in there and to really turn it into a resort town. He was there when the park was dedicated and he was a part of the group that went on a tour throughout the Southeast advertising Gatlinburg before anybody knew about it, that actually helped put it on the map. When he told me that he wished he had become a lawyer, I just stuck with that.

LD: Since you played football in college, did you ever think about a pro football career?

DS: No. In high school, I might’ve thought about that, but when I went to Vanderbilt on a full scholarship and played for four years, it was clear-cut that that was the pinnacle of my football career. I was not going any farther. I knew it, and I was content with that.

I loved football all the way up until college, but in college it was more like a business. I stuck with it and did it, but it was no longer fun. I was very happy to set my sights on going to law school and moving on.

LD: What took you to Texas?

DS: When I went to Vanderbilt, I had actually never been west of the Mississippi River. That same wanderlust – and my personal life at the time – caused me to apply to law schools in Texas. Once I arrived in the Lone Star State, I knew that I would never leave.

So I applied to law schools in Texas, and I got into the University of Houston. I was an OK student at Vanderbilt, but I was more interested in other things, social life, football and that sort of thing.

When I got into law school, I had all of that life out of my system. I bore down in law school and made exceptional grades, graduated high in my class. I enjoyed being a student. A lot of folks got to law school and thought it was time to play pinball and party and have a keg on Friday. I was more serious about it.

LD: It helps to sow your wild oats before law school.

And being able to focus during those three years must have helped set you up when you got your degree. How did you choose your path after law school?

DS: I interviewed with Houston and Dallas firms, and I got a clerkship with a federal district judge in Dallas, Robert Hill, now deceased. He was a very highly regarded, wonderful man, great judge. Later went on to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals after I clerked for him. I clerked for him for a year.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

231

500

500 THE SKILLS OF A TRIAL LAWYER ARE THE SKILLS OF PERSUASION. IT’S NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT MATTERS, IT’S THE SKILLS OF PERSUASION THAT MATTER. When you clerk for a federal judge, the firms in town are all pretty nice to you. I interviewed around town and had some really very flattering and attractive offers. One of the most prestigious firms in town was Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal. They offered me a job following the clerkship and I took it.

That’s how I ended up staying in Dallas: I thought that the benefit of the clerkship would be best there, where a lot of folks had been in Judge Hill’s court and knew I was his clerk. I’d become known around town a little. I figured if I went to another city, such as Houston, which I really liked, it just wouldn’t carry as much weight and wouldn’t be as beneficial.

LD: Did you have any mentors at Carrington Coleman?

DS: The keystone of whatever success I have achieved since joining the firm is that I was assigned to Jim Coleman. Jim was the paragon of a great lawyer. When I was a beginning lawyer, being assigned to him was the luckiest thing that ever happened to me.

I was at Carrington Coleman for 19 years. During the time I was an associate and part of the time when I was a partner, my relationship and assignment to Jim never changed. That was unusual.

The firm usually had a fruit basket turnover. Associates were assigned to somebody else after a year or two, but I was always assigned to Jim and he was just a terrific mentor. I learned so much from him. He was a great trial lawyer, tried a lot of cases. He was the type of lawyer whom judges and other lawyers called if they needed an attorney.

LD: Did you do your first trial with him?

DS: Actually, my first trial I did by myself. He handed me a file one day and said, “Here’s the file, Dick. I want you to take this on down to the courthouse and get your water wings.”

I studied the file. It was a pretty straightforward case, some kind of breach of warranty. And so, I went down to the courthouse, and picked the jury, and tried the case. I ended up trying probably a dozen cases

232

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

with Jim over the years, which was terrific. The way he worked was that he expected you to be able to do everything. Now he would carry a load, but he would expect you to be able to carry the whole load if you needed to.

Sometimes the witness would be testifying, and we would have decided that he was going to take that witness, and when it was almost time to pass the witness, he’d lean over and say, “You take him.” And so I would.

LD: Wow. DS: Right? I didn’t know it at the time, but I think he was gauging whether I could or should do it.

LD: Or whether you’d freeze.

DS: That’s why he wanted me or whomever worked with him, and I worked with him the most, to be ready to do everything in the case. And that’s how I grew up as a lawyer.

LD: Those sound like the techniques that Steve Susman used with some of his attorneys, the “You want to be a trial lawyer, get up there,” approach.

DS: That’s exactly right. Jim believed firmly that we could try any sort of case. In the day and time of specialization, there are people that try drug cases, there are people that try only injury cases, and there are people that do only defense work. Jim’s philosophy, which he taught me and everybody else who was fortunate enough to be around him, was that the skills of a trial lawyer are the skills of persuasion. It’s not the subject matter that matters, it’s the skills of persuasion that matter, and a good trial lawyer with a decent short term-memory could learn the science or the subject matter. So if they had the skills of persuasion, they could try any type of case.

That’s why I’ve tried everything from airplane crashes, to Qui Tam cases, to securities fraud, to car wrecks, to product liability cases. And I’ve tried nine patent cases to a jury verdict.

LD: You don’t see that much breadth in commercial trial work these days.

500

DS: It’s not that I didn’t need folks on the team who knew the science who could teach it to me in the short term. I definitely did, but I was never intimidated, never unwilling to take on cases, and now consequently, people say, “Well, has anybody ever tried a case like ABC?” And usually I have. I don’t think that I’m a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none; I look at it as mastery of trial skills, and the skills of persuasion.

While Jim Coleman was the foundation of my career, after 19 years at Carrington Coleman in 1994, I along with a couple of other guys decided that we needed to form our own firm. We were with, if not the most prestigious firm, one of the most prestigious firms in Dallas, and the state, and even in the country. But we decided that we really needed to chart our own courses, do our own thing.

LD: As close as you become with a mentor, there still comes a time, right?

DS: When I went over to Jim’s house to tell him, I wasn’t sure how he would take it, but had I thought about it, I would’ve known exactly. It was on a Saturday, and I rang the doorbell, and he came to the door and I told him, “Jim, I appreciate everything you’ve done, but it’s time for me to start my own firm. I’m here to tell you that I’m leaving, and I hope you’re not disappointed.”

And he said, without hesitation, “Dick, the only way I’ll ever be disappointed is if you don’t shoot for the stars to make it.” So I left in 1994, started Sayles Werbner and we joined Bradley on our 25th anniversary. We had a 25-year run that was, again, incredibly lucky.

Every year was a success by all measures, including financially. And our paradigm at the firm was to keep the firm small, but to play in the big leagues. That was a real challenge.

When we started Sayles Werbner in ‘94, boutique firms were in vogue, and they were getting their share of big cases, and we got our share. Over the next 25 years, it kept getting increasingly harder, and the pendulum was swinging back toward big firms.

Dallas had had mostly local and regional firms, but that started to change. It was a big deal when Baker Botts moved an office from Houston to Dallas. Now, almost all of the Am Law 50 firms have Dallas offices.

So that was a progression over a number of years that was taking place, and even though that pendulum was swinging back toward big firms, especially the past four or five years, the year that we joined Bradley, our last full year, 2018, was the second-best in our 25-year history.

LD: Was it the progression toward big law firms that made you decide to go with Bradley then? Or was there more to it?

DS: About three years ago, Mark Werbner and I were talking to the rest of the members of the firm about their future, and where they saw the firm going. I was approaching 70, and Mark was in his late 60s, and we were still in good health and still enjoying the practice of law. But we said, “What do y’all think about the future? Because we want y’all to help chart the course here. We’ve made most of the decisions for many, many years.”

The group studied it for about a year, got a consultant and decided that really the only viable way for them forward, was if Mark and I just continued to do what we were doing. And we said, “Well, we will as long as we can.” And at this stage in life, you just never know what it’s going to bring you.

And then, of course, everyone knew that for the last 10 years as these larger firms established Dallas offices, many of them had called us. The reason is pretty simple: We were small, so we were bite-sized for an acquisition and not too hard for an outside firm to take on. And we were known for quality. Everyone had a great pedigree, and a great resume and good experience. Until then, I had always said when I got those calls, usually in the very first call, “Thank you, but no thank you.” Bradley, in fact, was one of those calls – seven years ago.

So when our young folks decided that they really didn’t have a way forward without Mark and me doing what we’d been doing, they said, “Well, when we get these calls from these outside firms that want to come into Dallas, why don’t we listen?” I said, “OK, that’s fair. We will certainly do that.” Wouldn’t you know that Bradley called back right at that very time?

I said, “Well, what do you know? We would certainly be interested in continuing the discussion and seeing where it leads.”

LD: They must have been thrilled.

DS: In the meantime, two or three other firms came courting, very good firms. We talked to them, as well, and Bradley, in my view, clearly emerged as our very best opportunity in terms of the fit and opportunity.

They have an excellent, excellent reputation in Alabama and in Tennessee. By a year or two ago, they had also opened the Houston office. So I thought we could help them get some traction, help put them on the map in Texas. And, most importantly, for the other folks in our firm who have great careers ahead

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

233

500

500 234

Denman Heard

Shawn Holley

HEARD LAW FIRM HOUSTON

KINSELLA WEITZMAN SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

Sean Hecker

Ellen Holloman

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Dara Hegar

Hillary Holmes

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

GIBSON DUNN HOUSTON

Edward Herlihy

Patricia Brown Holmes

WACHTELL NEW YORK

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

Damaris Hernรกndez

Deneen Howell

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lina Hidalgo

Heidi Hubbard

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Alan Hoffman

Sophia Hudson

BLANK ROME PHILADELPHIA

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Mary Beth Hogan

Erica Hughes

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Lela Hollabaugh

James Hurst

BRADLEY NASHVILLE

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

of them, this seemed like a wonderful opportunity.

That’s what brought us to Bradley.

LD: This way, you’re not necessarily going to have to be practicing until you’re 90, unless you want to.

DS: That’s right. I still love it, but I’ve tried cases all over Texas. I’ve tried cases in seven other states. I’m to the point now where I will still go on the road but I prefer not to. If I can sleep in my own bed, I prefer to sleep in my own bed. As I jokingly say sometimes, I’ve taken the last deposition in Big Spring, Texas, that I’m ever going to take. Somebody else is going to go out there and do that. It’s not going to be me.

So here we are.

Everything about Bradley has been even better than I assessed it when we made the decision to join.

LD: When you reflect on your career, are there any cases that you find particularly meaningful? Because of the battle, the size of the verdict or for any other reason?

DS: I can tell you two that come to mind. I represented a man who was a retired jockey. He was about 4 feet 11 inches, weighed about 85 pounds; he had a heart condition, and he was in the hospital. He was on a ventilator for an operation, and the ventilator failed, but the alarm didn’t sound and he was left seriously brain-injured. He survived, but his wife had to care for him for the rest of his life. She could actually almost pick him up because he was so small, but he was a 70-year-old man who’s miniature.

I tried that case in federal court in Dallas. I asked the jury for a verdict of $6M, and they awarded $7M, which was a pretty gratifying day.

LD: That’s amazing. Congratulations.

DS: Another one I cannot forget was in 2009. I was part of a team, but I did do the closing argument and put on key witnesses in the case, and we got a verdict of $1.75B and change.

When the verdict came back, the judge didn’t let us see the verdict form before he read it. He just read it in open court. So everybody heard it at the same time. It was a patent case, and when he read the verdict amount, I had an out-of-body experience. I remember walking down the street from the courthouse to our little war room where we’d rented some space locally, and it just felt like I was walking about five feet off the ground.

When you’re a young lawyer, you always hope you’ll get a million-dollar verdict. And then you get a little

farther along and you think, “Well, if I get a $10M verdict,” and then lo and behold, now I can say I’ve gotten a billion-dollar verdict because I have.

LD: Amazing. When you go back to that 6-year old in Gatlinburg, that’s why you dream. Right?

DS: Exactly. That case was complex science. But just like Jim taught, all that really mattered was the skills of persuasion. I knew the science at the time.

I don’t know it anymore. But my view was if I can’t understand it, the jury is not going to understand it.

LD: Exactly right. While you consider learning the value of persuasion as one of your most important lessons, are there others that you think have been integral to your success?

DS: One thing that I learned is that people really ultimately connect heart to heart, not head to head.

And so many lawyers, especially really smart lawyers who are steeped in science and may have engineering backgrounds, come from the head. It’s true that in the trial, you do have to cover the bases. You do have to present the scientific evidence. But to connect with the jury, you’ve got to find a way to connect heart to heart. That’s how you’re going to win.

And you can do it even in a dry case, even in a case that involves a deep science, you can find a moral high ground or a connection that you can bring to people on a very heart-to-heart level.

LD: The difference is really night and day between trial lawyers who are simply technical experts and lawyers who know they’re talking to real people about real people, even if those real people wrote software code or came up with some kind of engineering innovation.

DS: It is. I guess another advantage that I do have is that I have pretty broad life experience, growing up in a town that had a resident population of 1,300, and then going to Vanderbilt, which is a pretty highly acclaimed academic school coming out of Appalachia.

Growing up, working in the motel and the gift shop and raising tobacco, and baling hay, and those kinds of things. Riding horses and feeding horses. I could go interview a witness out on a farm and sit on a bale of hay and talk to them about cattle, or I could go meet a professor and talk to them about some academic subject. It just all kind of flows out of my lucky life experience.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

235

LaBarron Boone BEASLEY ALLEN (ATLANTA, GA)

500

L A BARRON BOONE LABARRON BOONE HAS BUILT A LEGAL CAREER

around a sole mission: to make the world a better place. This simple yet profound ethos towards his practice has led to record-setting verdicts and, more crucially, improved the safety of consumer products, such as smoke alarms and cab guards, to prevent future harm.

He secured a landmark verdict in Alabama last year for a young man who was left paralyzed after the 1998 Ford Explorer he was a passenger in rolled over when the driver swerved to avoid an animal – a case he discussed recently as a guest speaker at the 2020 National Trial Lawyers Summit.

Boone originally went to school for engineering, but was drawn to the law as his greatest chance to make a difference in the world. A graduate of University of Alabama School of Law, Boone is a partner at Beasley Allen and a member of the firm’s executive committee.

Lawdragon: Will you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice?

LaBarron Boone: Our firm is divided into four sections: products liability, fraud, mass torts and toxic torts. Being a shareholder and member of the executive committee allows me an opportunity to try cases in all sections. Two in particular stand out in my mind.

In Merriweather v. Whirlpool, we received the largest individual plaintiff verdict in the history of the nation for consumer fraud, $581M. Most recently, last year in Smith v. Ford, we received the largest verdict in the history of Alabama and gave hope to a young man who now requires care for his basic needs.

LD: Aside from incredible results like those two, what motivates you with this work? What do you like about it?

LB: I am a passionate, caring person raised by a mother who demanded I serve and “make this world a better place.” Each one of my cases involves catastrophic harm and loss to people and families. I am most proud of those that effect change in a real way, like improving the cab guard on logging trucks or improving smoke alarm safety.

LD: Can you walk us through a case you’ve handled that stands out as having that type of broad impact?

LB: The Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone tire blowout and subsequent Ford Explorer defective design lawsuits. Firestone tires were detreading on vehicles at

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

BY ALISON PREECE highway speeds, causing serious injuries and deaths.

In early August 2000, the second largest tire recall in United States history was announced, 6.5 million tires. Tires continued to detread on highways, causing thousands of unnecessary deaths. While taking a deposition for a Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone case we learned that the spare tire recall was sent third-class mail. This failure on the part of Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone led to nationwide recall policy change so that recall notices are sent first class to ensure timely delivery and forwarding when necessary.

While the Ford Bridgestone/Firestone litigation continued it was discovered that certain Ford Explorers were defective in design. Both Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford were forced to make changes to improve safety of their products.

LD: You mentioned a recent big win in Smith v Ford.

Can you tell us about that one?

LB: A jury in Dallas County, Ala., found Ford Motor Company at fault for a rollover crash of a 1998 Ford Explorer that left Travaris “Tre” Smith paralyzed. The jury awarded Tre $151,791,000, which consisted of $51,791,000 in compensatory damages and $100M in punitive damages. The jury found that Ford failed to meet its own safety guidelines for the Explorer’s rollover resistance requirement and attempted to cover up the vehicle’s defective design. Mr. Smith is a young man who now needs 24 hours per day care for the most basic needs. His life expectancy has been reduced substantially by Ford’s callous conduct.

With the jury verdict, Mr. Smith will have a home he can access with the wheelchair he now needs. He and his family can afford health care to take care of his daily needs and provide him a comfortable life.

Mr. Smith said it himself, he would take being able to walk again any day, but the money will help to make his life after the rollover one he can enjoy.

LD: Why did you pursue a career in the law in the first place, LaBarron?

LB: The most significant thing that paved this road to law school was my mother. She always asked me to “make the world a better place.” I admired Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. After reading his book about his lifelong fight as an attorney against segregation the desire to work in the legal field started to take hold.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

237

500

500 I ADMIRED THURGOOD MARSHALL, THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. AFTER READING HIS BOOK ABOUT HIS LIFELONG FIGHT AS AN ATTORNEY AGAINST SEGREGATION THE DESIRE TO WORK IN THE LEGAL FIELD STARTED TO TAKE HOLD. LD: I saw that you have an engineering degree. How did you make the pivot to law school?

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office?

LB: After studying engineering, I worked as a project manager. Board discussions centered on the money spent on outside legal counsel. These cost control discussions led to the engineering firm allowing me to attend law school. There was a need for that knowledge to be readily available; it positioned our firm well going forward. As for me, I found another path and have never looked back.

LB: I love spending time with my wife, son and daughter. Taking family trips abroad and watching my son play basketball and my daughter play violin make all the hard work worthwhile. All the summers we spent on the road following my son’s AAU basketball team, the Montgomery Fire, led to Micah receiving offers to play college basketball from multiple schools. He ultimately chose to play college basketball at MIT in Boston, Mass. Occasionally, I get an opportunity to play golf but, since I don’t have much free time, I am not very good anymore.

It is now clear to me God led me to the practice of law. It was not my plan. It was simply a matter of happenstance.

LD: Did you have any early mentors in the legal field that made an impression or helped shape the course of your professional life?

LB: Jere Beasley, the founding partner of our firm, told me after I got a $581M verdict that, if I wanted to be a continued blessing to our firm, I needed to put God first, my family second and my job third. He said if I did that, everything else would work out for our clients. I have done that and believe that was the best advice I have ever taken. At the time, our firm probably had 10 lawyers and 20 staff. We now have 80 lawyers and 250 staff and he still gives that advice to his attorneys and staff. I believe it has worked well for us all.

LD: Can you tell us more about what you like about your firm?

LB: I like that Beasley Allen is based on the same principles my mother instilled in me: God and family.

My mother’s catch phrase, “make the world better for your being here,” embodies Jere’s principle of God first, family second and work third. We fight injustice everywhere we find it, and when corporate greed leads to catastrophic suffering, we are there to fight for those families injured because of the tragic choices of others.

238

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Will you tell us about your community involvement?

LB: I serve on the Cleveland Avenue YMCA Board of Management, Resurrection Catholic Church Board of Trustees, Child Protect Board of Trustees, the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Foundation and the Board of Medical Outreach Ministries (MOM). I also serve on the Central Alabama Community Foundation Board of Trustees (CACF), one of the largest charitable foundations in the state of Alabama, with assets exceeding $27M. I was selected to serve on the Alabama State University 2011 and 2013 Presidential Search Committees as well.

My wife and I also created the Lori and LaBarron Boone educational foundation to provide scholarships to college students who have the aptitude, but not the financial means to pay for college.

LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system?

LB: My favorite books about the justice system are “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama and “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

500

Melissa Hutson

Dani James

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

Sherrilyn Ifill

Rachel Jensen

NAACP-LDF NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Phil Iovieno

Jeh Johnson

CADWALADER ALBANY

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Loretta Ippolito

Randy Johnston

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

JOHNSTON TOBEY DALLAS

William Isaacson

Megan Jones

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

Tarek Ismail

Phyllis Jones

GOLDMAN ISMAIL CHICAGO

COVINGTON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jason Itkin

Tonya Jones

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Marc Jaffe

Nora Jordan

LATHAM NEW YORK

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Jameel Jaffer

Elena Kagan

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK

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

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

239

500

500 Philip Harnett Corboy Jr. CORBOY & DEMETRIO (CHICAGO)

240

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PHILIP HARNETT CORBOY JR. AS THE PANDEMIC CONTINUES, TRIAL

lawyer Philip Harnett Corboy Jr. has grown increasingly concerned that the American appreciation for the civil justice system – what he refers to as “a delicate organism” – will begin to wane. Any citizen looking to renew this appreciation might best take a look at a career like Corboy’s, which has been devoted to the concept of access to justice through excellent courtroom advocacy. Corboy, who is known as Flip by all, prosecuted violent felonies for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, before building a renowned plaintiffs’ practice in which he has accumulated a remarkable record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements.

That he has built this record at the legendary Chicago firm of Corboy & Demetrio – started by his father Philip H. Corboy, who passed away in 2012, and Thomas Demetrio – means that Corboy also has a long history of extra-practice commitments to the community and his profession. A past president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Corboy now serves on the board of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Foundation.

Lawdragon: What are some of the cases keeping you busy these days?

Philip Corboy: A wrongful death lawsuit in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Fla., involving an exploding Tesla S, as well as a number of wrongful death cases involving construction and transportation companies here in Illinois. We’re also actively in litigation stemming from a cancer cluster here in the Chicago area against Shell Oil, and individual cases involving Zantac, Round-Up and Sterigenics, to name a few. We also have a long history of professional negligence cases against doctors and hospitals, as well as litigation on behalf of clients whose sperm was negligently kept and then destroyed by a fertility clinic operated by a major hospital here in Chicago.

We’ve always been involved in airliner crash litigation and currently have wrongful death cases coming out of the Ethiopian Air 302 and Lion Air - Indonesia crashes of 2019 involving the Boeing Max 737.

LD: Can you talk about how the pandemic is affecting your practice or the firm more broadly?

PC: Like every other law firm, ours has been affected by the pandemic. Our practice involves quick and

PHOTO BY MICHELLE NOLAN

BY JOHN RYAN

easy access to the courts, and the pandemic has affected our ability to conduct discovery and work up the cases for trial in a timely fashion. As all trial lawyers know, if you’re unable to get to the courthouse and try cases, coupled with the lack of jurors’ enthusiasm for appearing for jury selection, the road to “fair and reasonable” verdicts gets stopped in its tracks.

Most of our work is done in state courts throughout Illinois, and we’ve had the benefit of working with some hardworking, smart judges who have supervisory powers in their jurisdictions. They’re working creatively with plaintiffs’ lawyers, defense attorneys, the medical community and political office holders to keep the gears of the civil justice system working during this unprecedented time in our history. But there are a lot of moving parts, and all it takes is one of those interested parties to gum up the works. And Zoom and BlueJeans systems are helpful, but they’re not a long-term solution for in-court trials. We’re all working toward an end game in which things get back to normal, but I don’t think that’s going to happen until we get to where jurors feel comfortable leaving the relative safety of their home, traveling to a courthouse, sitting for jury selection, hearing our cases and then rendering a verdict.

And it’s my personal opinion it won’t happen until there’s a vaccine that’s accepted by all who have the power to bring the courts back together again to ensure fairness and justice for all of us in the system.

I’ve talked to a great many trial attorneys across the country and we all seem to acknowledge that we’ve had to expand the type and number of cases, like commercial and insurance-related litigation cases, to round out our needs going forward.

LD: If this is going to last for a while, are there ways in which you think the pandemic might have a permanent impact on plaintiffs’ access to justice or how civil litigation is administered more generally?

PC: Yes. The longer the pandemic fuels the slowdown of the civil justice system, the more our clients are going to suffer a second indignity of the system not being able to properly and carefully take care of their needs. The civil justice system in America is a delicate organism that constantly needs to be improved upon and taken seriously as an important part of the rights of all Americans. The longer this lasts, the harder it’s going to be for Americans from all different parts of

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

241

500

500 the country to remember and appreciate the real value of the system going forward.

There are lawyers with a wonderful sense of institutional history and knowledge of the system that I’ve talked to who had planned to work many, many more years in the future, but are now looking more and more at retiring, and that would be a very sad byproduct of the pandemic. They’re lawyers who’ve had wonderful careers, can still try cases at the top of their game, who are not really that old when it comes to their abilities, imagination and the charisma to continue to try cases, but who are feeling that their practices have been consumed by the pandemic.

And they feel it’s not worth it any longer, all things considered equal. Furthermore, younger lawyers coming out of law school and the public offices are facing short-term and long-term doubts about wanting to become trial lawyers. They have student loans that are getting more and more difficult to manage.

As I said, the whole system is dependent on the ability to get jurors into a box, sit patiently listening to the facts and testimony and then render a fair and impartial verdict. And you can’t be upset with potential jurors if they’re uncomfortable with leaving the safety of their homes and sitting in a jury box for two or three weeks, sitting next to and conferring with people they’ve never met before, while worried if they are safe. Very unsettling.

LD: I read in one piece that you described yourself as a child of the 1960s. Can you talk a little bit about that and the path that eventually got you to law school?

PC: I matured from being a boy to a young man during one of the most tumultuous times politically, socially and culturally in our country’s history. I graduated from the insulation of a New England boarding school where there were a lot of interesting kids from very diverse backgrounds. I was politically active by standards of that time. In 1968, I was a page for the Arkansas delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and was able to be up close and in person for what had to be four of the craziest days in American political history. I stayed politically active when I went to college at Villanova University, which meant marching in Washington against the Vietnam War and helping political candidates on weekends by canvassing in congressional districts all along the East Coast.

Following graduation, I went to Washington, D.C., naively thinking I could help change the world. I soon discovered that my entryway to that world was a job

242

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

as an elevator operator in the United States Senate under the patronage of my Senator at that time, Adlai Stevenson III. It was a fun job, but it wasn’t something I moved to Washington to do. About halfway through I ran into a congressman who was a family friend from Chicago and who had an opening in his office as a low-level staffer. I’m pretty sure it was at the lowest pay grade on Capitol Hill. But it had one incredible benefit – it was right in the middle of Watergate and my boss let me and the other staffers go to the Judiciary Committee’s huge room to watch the proceedings live and in person whenever we had time. After that, I was hooked. I decided I wanted to go to law school.

LD: What led you to a trial career?

PC: Once in law school, at DePaul College of Law, I ran into the same congressman who was having dinner with a friend of his who turned out to be a very prominent criminal defense attorney here in Chicago. He just happened to be looking for a parttime law clerk and his office was three blocks away from school. I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to learn something I knew nothing about. So, I took the job and upon graduation, with the help of him and others, I was able to get a job in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago. And the rest is history. I stayed in that office for seven-and-a-half years. I had over 40 jury verdicts, eventually ending up in the felony trial division prosecuting murder, armed robbery and rape cases.

And one day I got a call from a partner at a big law firm here in Chicago who was the head of that firm’s white-collar defense division. He had a large international practice and needed an associate. I sat on it to think for a while when about the same time, Tom Demetrio sought me out and we went to lunch. He explained all of the benefits of coming to work at Corboy & Demetrio. I eventually accepted the offer and it’s been a wonderful ride since then. Working here has allowed me to practice in a field that I love and with people with whom I’ve become very close and on cases I want to try and feel good about helping people who need it. The plaintiffs’ bar throughout the country spends a lot of time and energy reminding everyone about the need for preservation of the civil justice system, and through that, I’ve been allowed to work with a whole host of interesting, dedicated and smart people who’ve made a big difference in the lives of people who needed them at the most delicate, sensitive time in their lives.

500

LD: Is there a case from your long career representing injured people and their families that stands out in your memory for one reason or another?

PC: I’ve had the opportunity to work for some wonderful people who’ve had the singular misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up with injuries that have completely compromised their lives. A vast majority of them understand their plight and reach out for as much help that all of us at Corboy & Demetrio can offer at what is usually the saddest chapter of their lives. All of us here at C&D are extremely humbled that our clients have entrusted us with their futures, and we don’t take anything for granted.

It makes us so grateful that we’re able to “do well by doing good.” Most of the people you meet and represent in my business come from very humble middleclass and working-class backgrounds who’ve had their lives upended by tragic circumstances. We almost always have technical, sophisticated issues involving commercial products that break down or automobiles that end up crashing or planes that are seemingly safe, but which don’t make a safe return to terra firma. We have a passion for what we do knowing full well that we have to be patient when dealing with situations where patience may not be easy to maintain.

LD: What’s an example?

PC: As an example, a case where I felt very grateful to be able to help out in a big way was a situation involving a client who was working on a construction project in a semi-rural part of our state when a plank of wood fell from a couple of floors above him, landing on his back and rendering him an incomplete quadriplegic with minimal use of his arms and shoulders.

He was a simple man who had come from a rural part of Arkansas to work in Illinois. One of the things we learned about him was that he was a big fan of golf. One of the things we were able to do for him following his jury verdict was to help him continue his love of the game.

When the verdict was read in the courtroom he started to cry because he was now going to be able to do what he wanted, which was to play golf using a tricked-out, custom-made golf cart specifically designed for people like him. That’s it. No great plans to build a big house or buy an expensive boat. Just a pretty cool golf cart.

To most of us that wouldn’t be a big deal but to him, it meant that he was going to be able to go outside and enjoy the rest of his life on his terms.

I also remember a client and his family whose wife was killed while walking along one of our downtown

streets in Chicago when a windowpane that had been cracked and deteriorating for a long time fell from, of all things, the CNA insurance building. She was an undocumented worker from Mexico who was walking with her very young daughter to her second job as a hotel housekeeper.

Ironically, her daughter was born on the exact day, at the same maternity hospital and on the exact same floor as my wife’s and my now 25-year old daughter.

Who would’ve predicted that! As it played out, the two little girls have celebrated a couple of birthdays together and stay in touch to this day. It’s episodes like this that reinforce my belief that I’m one of the luckiest people in the world to be able to do what I want to do and meet people whom I’ve truly become fond of for the rest of my life.

LD: Can you discuss any public interest and philanthropic commitments?

PC: I’ve been blessed by meeting fascinating, interesting and serious-minded people throughout my life who view their responsibilities to include making the world better for everybody. I’ve been lucky to have had leadership roles with a number of organizations that have a direct impact on the lives of people who’ve been kept down on the socioeconomic ladder through no fault of their own.

I was on the Board of the Legal Assistance Foundation here in Chicago for over 20 years and was graced with being its President in 2008. The Legal Assistance Foundation (now called Legal Aid Chicago) serves the legal needs of Chicago’s poor, sick, aged and immigrant communities and is the second-largest legal aid provider in the country. I was also privileged to be the President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association at a time when our state’s civil justice system was under attack by tort reformers who were able to convince our lawmakers to enact draconian, self-serving legislation limiting the rights of people who had been horribly injured and killed. I’m happy to report that we had that legislation ruled unconstitutional and overturned in our Supreme Court and the system has moved along smoothly ever since.

Also, currently I’m on the Board of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Foundation, which is charged with helping America’s world-class athletes with opportunities to participate at the highest-level Olympic Games and international competitions and then help in preparing them for their post-athletic careers.

Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2020/11/16/ lawyer-limelightphilip-harnett-corboy-jr.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

243

Karen Dyer CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

500

KAREN DYER NO LAWYER WANTS TO TAKE A CASE ALL THE WAY

to trial only to realize a carefully refined courtroom strategy has to be discarded for something else.

Especially when that something else is a complete unknown.

But the ability – make that agility – to change gears is crucial for a successful trial lawyer and can be one of the most important parts of the job, says Cadwalader litigation partner Karen Dyer.

“Trials are real time, fast-moving and ever-changing,” she says. “They require you to think hard, and to think on your feet.” Sometimes literally on your feet. Dyer vividly recalls defending a major client in a summary judgment hearing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that spanned 11 hours over a few days. She spent much of it standing while the judge peppered her and the other side’s attorney with questions.

“I remember on one of those days pulling more comfortable heels out of my purse, because I was unsure how much longer I’d have to stand. As I explained to my team, preparation comes in many forms.”

That’s the (not so) glamorous life of top trial lawyers, a group whose female membership is growing but at a glacial pace. That’s true of the legal profession overall, where women make up nearly half of summer associates yet only 22 percent of partners at the nation’s 200 largest law firms, according to the most recent statistics from the American Bar Association.

To bridge that gap, Dyer says, firms should consider non-traditional paths to partnership, and take deliberate steps to help women develop clients and rise through the ranks of firm leadership. This is particularly important because women are often the primary child caregivers at the most critical juncture of their careers.

It’s a dilemma Dyer encountered early in her career as an associate at Carlton Fields in Orlando, working with partner Anne Conway, who is now a retired Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Dyer was on maternity leave after giving birth to her first child, apprehensive about leaving him at all, much less to return to work.

“Anne came and literally dragged me out of the house for a social event,” Dyer recalls. “She had little kids and knew how to balance family and being a successful lawyer. She made me get out of my comfort zone,

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY yet feel like if I walked into her office and said, ‘I’ve got to go home, we’ve got an emergency with the babysitter,’ she wasn’t going to hold it against me.”

After clerking for federal judge G. Kendall Sharp, Dyer started her career in private practice representing the FDIC/RTC in connection with the savings and loan scandal of the late 1980s which was punctuated by the Michael Milken junk bond litigation. Dyer left Carlton Fields to form her own firm to work with the FDIC/RTC during the height of this litigation, then joined Duker Barrett – a Cravath Swaine & Moore spinoff – and joined Boies Schiller as its first female partner in 1997, the year it was formed.

DYER HAS WORKED ALONGSIDE AND LEARNED FROM THE BEST, AND FOR DECADES HAS MADE HER PRESENCE KNOWN IN BOARDROOMS AND COURTROOMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. She recently left Boies Schiller to join Cadwalader with partner Nicholas Gravante and other lawyers.

The duo have teamed on numerous trials, including their $664M jury verdict in Marshall, Texas, in a whistleblower case against Trinity Industries.

“The term ‘trial lawyer’ is the most over- and inappropriately used term in our profession,” says Gravante.

“Less than one percent of litigators are actually trial lawyers and most litigators who call themselves trial lawyers have never picked a jury, examined a witness or given an opening or closing statement. Most are pre-trial lawyers.

“There are only a handful of true corporate trial lawyers across the country and, unfortunately, most of them are men. Karen Dyer is the real deal. She is now one

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

245

500

500 246

Meredith Kane

Brett Kavanaugh

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

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

Alan Kanner

Skip Keesal

KANNER & WHITELEY EW ORLEANS

KEESAL YOUNG LONG BEACH, CALIF.

Roberta Kaplan

Ashley Keller

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Alec Karakatsanis

Christopher Keller

CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Brad Karp

Jennifer Keller

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

KELLER ANDERLE IRVINE, CALIF.

David Karp

David Kelley

WACHTELL NEW YORK

DECHERT NEW YORK

Gary Kashar

Michael Kelly

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

Neal Katyal

T. Mark Kelly

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

David Katz

Erika Kelton

WACHTELL NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

DON’T BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS. DON’T BE AFRAID TO BE YOURSELF AND ACKNOWLEDGE TO OTHERS THAT YOU HAVE A FAMILY OR INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE LAW AND THAT YOU EXPECT YOUR COLLEAGUES TO RESPECT THAT…YOU’LL GET MORE RESPECT WITH FEWER APOLOGIES. of the top, true trial lawyers in the country. Our most important clients attest to her talent on a daily basis.”

Tenacious, self-effacing and remarkably connected, Dyer has worked alongside and learned from the best, and for decades has made her presence known in boardrooms and courtrooms throughout the country.

Lawdragon: Karen, I know your trials typically have you on the road constantly. How has Covid impacted your work?

KD: Covid has definitely presented challenges, but I feel like I’ve lived on planes and navigated logistical complexity throughout my career. I probably average over 30 conference and Zoom calls per week, but like my colleagues, when I need to be somewhere I get there. One day people may be able to do trials from their living rooms, but that’s not for me. I’ll be in a war room with my team because trials are truly collaborative undertakings.

LD: You’ve mentioned the issues facing women in the legal profession. What do you think are the most important today, and how can we address them?

KD: Some of them aren’t new, although women and their firms hopefully are becoming more flexible, creative and determined to resolve them. They include how to reconcile home life with a demanding work schedule, how firms can better assist women to become significant business developers and lead trial lawyers in major cases and how women can become firm leaders at the highest levels.

Flexibility in working remotely, recognition and acceptance of non-traditional work schedules, and ensuring that attorneys who avail themselves of this aren’t penalized or delayed in their career development is key. It can be hard to measure on a purely quantitative basis; there has to be a mechanism to qualitatively measure the contribution.

LD: As far as remote working, do you think the widespread adoption of it during the coronavirus pandemic will make the practice more common going forward?

KD: I think it will have a dramatic long-term impact.

It will allow people to telecommute for a portion of their work week, and courts will rely more heavily on telephonic and video hearings. While certain things will still be done in person, it will provide more flexibility to attorneys about how and where to work. The flip side is, we will lose some of the positives resulting from personal interaction and collaboration.

LD: Do you have thoughts on the path you and other Am Law 100 female trial lawyers have paved – without the benefit of many female role models? What advice would you give women (and men) today who want the courtroom to be their home?

KD: Don’t be afraid to take risks. Don’t be afraid to be yourself and acknowledge to others that you have a family or interests outside the law and that you expect your colleagues to respect that. Men in the practice of law have no problem leaving a meeting early to go to their children’s recital or Little League game, etc., yet women – even if they’re the primary caregiver – feel the need to apologize. You’ll get more respect with fewer apologies.

LD: That’s a good point. Figuring out that balance in the workplace can be like walking a tightrope, especially in law firms. Where did you get the idea to become a lawyer yourself? Did you have relatives who were attorneys?

KD: I was the first one in my family to go to grad school. We didn’t have any lawyers in the family, but I talked about wanting to be a lawyer when I was a child. And my dad worked with a number of lawyers as the president of a private holding company that

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

247

500

500 I FOUND MYSELF ATTRACTED TO THE CHALLENGES PRESENTED

BY COMPLICATED CASES AND THE EXACTING REQUIREMENTS OF TAKING A MATTER TO COURT. THERE WERE REALLY GOOD FIRMS ON THE OTHER SIDES OF THOSE MATTERS. owned Pepsi bottling franchises, and he and my mom always encouraged me.

LD: You have such a great understanding of business.

Did that come from your dad?

KD: He was an accounting major by trade, though he worked as a firefighter before going back to school and completing his degree in his mid-30s. After finishing his degree, he started as comptroller at one of the businesses owned by the private holding company and ultimately became CEO of the holding company.

He and my mom – who never had the opportunity to go to college before having four kids, but has a sharp mind for business herself – always encouraged me to get a business or accounting degree and that’s what I did to ensure I’d have a marketable profession even if I didn’t go to law school.

LD: So you grew up in South Florida and got your degree in accounting from University of Florida, where you then enrolled in law school. When did you get the idea to become a trial lawyer?

KD: Originally, I had the idea that with an accounting degree, I might want to go into tax law. But I pretty quickly decided in favor of litigation. And litigation to me always meant trying cases.

LD: Did your clerkship and early training at Carlton Fields make it clear you were meant to be in court?

KD: I found myself attracted to the challenges presented by complicated cases and the exacting requirements of taking a matter to court. There were really good firms on the other sides of those matters.

It was the type of high-level, complex commercial federal litigation that I liked seeing when I was a clerk, and I had hoped to be able to practice.

LD: Can you talk a bit about some of your favorite trials?

KD: Certainly the qui tam case against Trinity Industries, involving claims that it had installed faulty high-

248

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

way guardrails paid for by the federal government.

Anytime billions are at stake and you win a $664M judgment, it’s memorable. But the two jury trials it took to get there in Marshall, Texas were remarkable because we were such a small team up against an army of lawyers from what seemed like every major law firm in Texas. Although, as we suspected might happen, the judgment was reversed on appeal, the national media attention garnered by our trial victory resulted in intense federal and state regulatory scrutiny of the guardrail design at issue and our highways are now safer because of it.

I’m also proud of our multi-billion dollar trial victory in the Arizona Iced Tea war, where I worked on Long Island with a great team for many months. Because of my family’s experience in the beverage industry, I had a head start in that case and enjoyed handling the industry experts at trial. Again, that was a true team effort and my former partner, Helen Maher, orchestrated one of the most organized trial efforts I’ve ever seen.

My trial work on the SICO cases on behalf of Starr Companies, headed by former AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg, also stands out. We successfully defended against a $5.3B claim by his former company, AIG. It was a complex, hard fought trial and the judge was rigorous, but the jury got it – which doesn’t always happen.

LD: And tell me about the Dragon Naturally Speaking cases, which required you to employ both your bankruptcy and financial skills.

KD: For seven years, from 2000 to 2007, I handled a series of cases representing the majority owners of Dragon Naturally Speaking, the voice-recognition software that is the basis for the current generation of speech recognition software. The cases related to the fiasco that arose from the sale of Dragon for $600M in stock to publicly-traded Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products, which went bankrupt immediately after the sale. As a result, I was in bankruptcy court for two years and had to separately pursue a number of

500

commercial and investment banks and accounting firms in federal court in Boston.

Those were interesting cases for many reasons. Even though the cases were in Boston, most of the witnesses were in Belgium, where the company that had purchased Dragon was based, and I was living in Orlando. Let’s just say I earned a lot of frequent flyer miles.

Those cases were also interesting because it was just me and one associate handling the matter. I was 30-something years old when it started and still learning the ropes. I’m not sure that experience will ever be replicated because as my practice and the amounts at stake at my trials has grown, so have the size of the teams.

LD: In the Dragon matter you ended up achieving some great results for the clients, James and Janet Baker, who had developed the software and then sold it to Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products. Can you talk a little about that?

KD: When Lernout & Hauspie went into bankruptcy, the Bakers had nothing but stock. They had exchanged stock in their company for this Nasdaq public company’s stock. As a result, I felt like, “Great.

We’re trying to get blood from a stone, because creditors come first.” The case was further complicated by the fact that Lernout & Hauspie was a Belgian company, so in addition to the U.S. bankruptcy, there was a parallel bankruptcy in Belgium (called a concordat) and the debtors tried to play the two proceedings off of each other to see where they could get the most favorable result.

The argument I made to the U.S. bankruptcy judge was that, because the transaction with Dragon was actually a merger, my clients’ private company had actually merged into Lernout & Hauspie’s solvent U.S. subsidiary and, as equity holders of the solvent U.S. subsidiary, had priority over the majority of

other creditors.

We prevailed before the bankruptcy court, which prompted a settlement that gave my equity clients money even though not all the creditors in that bankruptcy got paid. But we had to agree to vacate the order because none of the bankruptcy litigators wanted our deal out there as precedent.

And I don’t think the more experienced bankruptcy lawyers I was up against in that case ever thought that some young female lawyer from Florida was going to argue that strenuously for such an unusual result. They were like, “You don’t understand. This is not the way it’s done.” And I said, “Oh, no. I understand perfectly.”

LD: I think you secretly like rolling up your sleeves.

KD: Probably. Taking what you have in a case, not what you wish you had, and finding a way to make it work for your client, to fit those puzzle pieces together, is definitely one of my favorite parts of my practice. That’s why trials are so much fun. Evidence goes in a piece at a time and jurors often have no idea why they are being presented with certain bits and pieces while it is being presented. Putting it all together for a jury at the end of a trial and watching their facial expressions when they finally get it, when they finally see the entire puzzle, is very rewarding.

LD: Can you talk about the lessons you’ve learned from working on so many important trials over the years?

KD: The one thing I’ll emphasize over everything else is the importance of always maintaining your credibility before the court. That is crucial throughout your career, not just throughout a given trial.

Also, maintaining flexibility as a case and trial unfold is crucial because you never know when you need to shift gears. Trials are like playing chess: In addition to knowing the record inside and out, you have to think several moves ahead.

TAKING WHAT YOU HAVE IN A CASE, NOT WHAT YOU WISH YOU HAD, AND FINDING A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK FOR YOUR CLIENT, TO FIT THOSE PUZZLE PIECES TOGETHER, IS DEFINITELY ONE OF MY FAVORITE PARTS OF MY PRACTICE. THAT’S WHY TRIALS ARE SO MUCH FUN. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

249

500

500 Jeannemarie O’Brien WACHTELL LIPTON (NEW YORK)

250

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

JEANNEMARIE O’BRIEN THE GLOBAL COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS ANOTHER

reminder that not all law firms are created equal or poised to handle dramatic turns in the economy.

Perched atop the elite end of the profession, the storied New York institution of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz has, not surprisingly, continued to have its hand in many of the world’s largest and most complex mergers and acquisitions. Another constant within the firm is Jeannemarie O’Brien playing a critical role in the executive-compensation and employee-benefits ends of the firm’s endless stream of transactions. O’Brien remains as excited by the problem-solving component of her deal work as she is grateful that she jumped at the opportunity to join Wachtell 23 years ago.

Lawdragon: What’s your mix of work like these days?

Jeannemarie O’Brien: Eighty percent of what I do is transactions – mergers, acquisitions, spinoffs, asset sales and within that I deal with the executive and broadbased compensation and employee issues. Twenty percent is executive compensation and governance work.

LD: What are you seeing in terms of deal flow and workload amidst Covid?

JO: We have remained busy throughout the pandemic, and things have picked up since summer. Recently, we announced PNC’s $11.6B acquisition of BBVA USA Bancshares and Home Depot’s $8B acquisition of HD Supply. I worked on both deals with the help of a wonderful associate, Amanda Toy. We have a group with four associates, one counsel and six partners, so all matters get partner hands-on attention and the associate on the matter and the partner work as a team. Amanda and I were on both of these matters and they happened to be signing on the same day but since we were both so involved with the details and in correspondence with the client, it went seamlessly.

LD: What has it been like advising companies on executive compensation issues?

JO: We are big believers in starting with what is right to address the needs and business priorities of the company – retention, incentive, talent management – and then from there evaluate how to do that in a way that makes the most sense when balancing the standards and expectations of proxy advisory firms and institutional shareholders. We do believe that clear disclosure of design that tries to address the rationale for a program or decision can go a long way.

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY JOHN RYAN LD: What was your major in college and what pushed you towards a career in the law?

JO: I majored in Political Science and Italian. My dad was a lawyer and I frankly loved school so really wanted to go back. After college, I was a paralegal at Cleary Gottlieb and really liked the pace and excitement of corporate law. I really did not know what kind of law I would do but did know I wanted to stay in New York and that I did not want to be a litigator based on my summer associate experience.

LD: How did you end up at Wachtell Lipton?

JO: I was a summer associate at Dewey Ballantine and the benefits group had two women partners (this was a long time ago) and in hindsight I think that is what in part made me gravitate towards them. In summer of 1997, I worked on a deal opposite Wachtell and the WLRK associate quit that Friday night, we signed the deal on Sunday, the headhunter called Wednesday and I came to Wachtell on July 14, 1997. I feel like I was given the opportunity of a lifetime and was brave enough to take it, for which I am grateful on a daily basis. I can’t tell you what a privilege it is to do the work I do with the colleagues and clients of the firm.

I have worked with incredible people at Wachtell, but I would say Ed Herlihy, Craig Wasserman (who sadly passed away) and Adam Chinn (who left the firm in 2007) were critical to my development and career, as were two now-retired women corporate partners, Pat Vlahakis and Pam Seymon. These partners and everyone at the firm gave me every opportunity to learn and grow and all of the encouragement and support so that eventually I had the confidence to lead matters.

LD: What keeps you excited about your practice, as well as any public interest involvement?

JO: I love solving problems and working with others – this is what makes work fun for me. Wachtell Lipton’s corporate lawyers realize that the compensation and social aspects of transactions are critical and the collaboration between our group and the corporate lawyers on a deal is what I think, in part, sets us apart.

Marty Lipton personally and the firm are very involved with the leadership development organization, Prep for Prep, that offers promising students of color access to a private school education based in New York City. I am on the Board and get tremendous satisfaction from my work with the organization.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

251

500

500 252

Sang Kim

Linda Kornfeld

DLA EAST PALO ALTO, CALIF.

BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES

Igor Kirman

Alexandra Korry

WACHTELL NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

David Kistenbroker

Michael Kosnitzky

DECHERT CHICAGO

PILLSBURY MIAMI

Adam Klein

Kalpana Kotagal

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gayle Klein

Leslie Kroeger

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Jeffrey Klein

Robert Kry

WEIL NEW YORK

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ethan Klingsberg

Lea Haber Kuck

FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Mary Koch

Sandy Kuzmich

WAIS VOGELSTEIN BALTIMORE

HAUG PARTNERS NEW YORK

Jamie Kocis

Walter Lack

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

William Lafferty

Alejandro Gonzalez Lazzeri

MORRIS NICHOLS WILMINGTON

SKADDEN NEW YORK

David Lam

Mark Lebovitch

WACHTELL NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Jeffrey Lamken

Edward Lee

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Brent Landau

Travis Lenkner

HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Thomas Patrick Lane

Karen Hoffman Lent

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Mark Lanier

Theodore Leopold

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Daryl Lansdale

Marni Lerner

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Lisa Laukitis

Sandra Leung

SKADDEN NEW YORK

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB NEW YORK

Wendi Lazar

Harlan Levy

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

253

Larry Rogers Jr. POWER ROGERS (CHICAGO)

500

LARRY ROGERS JR. SUCCESSFUL PERSONAL INJURY PRACTICES are built on individuals and their families trusting lawyers with their only chance of earning a measure of justice after catastrophic events.

For Larry Rogers Jr., that relationship of trust runs both ways: Believing in your clients is also the best way to dramatically improve their lives. Rogers, who has earned record-setting results for clients, thrives not just on these relationships but also on the diverse range of issues he needs to master before litigating them.

“I have represented people from all walks of life in all types of cases, and fortunately, I have been able to secure significant results for my clients that have allowed them to return to some semblance of normalcy often after great tragedy and loss,” Rogers says.

The Chicago-based partner of Power Rogers also counts himself lucky for the mentors who helped shape his career – founding partners Joe Power and Larry Rogers Sr., who is also his father. The renowned litigation firm has earned billions of dollars for plaintiffs.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice?

Larry Rogers Jr: I am a trial lawyer that has had the honor, the privilege and the awesome responsibility of representing severely injured persons or the families of persons killed as a result of negligent or wrongful conduct. My practice has allowed me to represent people from all walks of life from the homeless to the wealthy in their fight for justice. I have represented clients whose lives have been turned upside down as a result of medical malpractice, businesses that placed profits over safety, and overzealous police officers that have abused their authority resulting in citizens’ constitutional rights being violated resulting in them being maimed or even killed.

LD: How did you first become interested in representing injured people and their families?

LRJ: I was introduced to this area of practice by my father, Larry Rogers Sr., who pursued a second career as an attorney around the time I was graduating from high school. In speaking with him about the cases he handled, and the people he was able to help, I developed an interest in the law in general, and litigation more specifically. Once I learned that I could help victims whose lives had been shattered

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

BY JOHN RYAN by the wrongful conduct of another by arguing their cases before a jury, I was bitten by the bug. There is no greater feeling than taking on the plight of a wrongfully victimized individual and using the law to secure the justice they deserve.

LD: What else do you find satisfying about it?

LRJ: I find it incredibly satisfying to meet with a person who has been unfairly victimized and have them entrust you with the pursuit of their case. You develop a relationship with the person. You talk, meet and text.

You learn about them and their family, and you become vested in holding those who ravaged their lives accountable. There is nothing more professionally gratifying than to have a client thank you for believing in them and taking their case when no one else would listen. It is incredibly humbling to know that you can effect real change in someone’s life simply by believing in them and fighting with them for the justice that they deserve.

LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled?

LRJ: This is a tough question to answer because one of the things I enjoy most about being a plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer is the learning. When a client comes to you and presents a set of facts, proving their case may require you to learn something you knew nothing about before.

I have had clients whose cases required that I learn about the transportation industry and how international shipping companies utilize containers from ships, to trains, to tractor trailers, and how errors in the operation resulted in tragedy. I have had clients whose cases required that I learn how neurosurgery progressed from open neurosurgical procedures to treat brain aneurysms to the delivery of stents into the brain by maneuvering tiny catheters through the blood vessels. I have had clients who suffered strokes during surgery whose cases required that I learn how anesthesiologists are supposed to manage blood pressure to ensure adequate blood flow and perfusion to the brain. I have had clients who were rendered paralyzed and confined to wheelchairs because corporate greed put productivity and profit over consumer safety.

Each of these cases has been interesting to me and has consumed me while I was handling them. And

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

255

500

500 I’ve walked away from each with a renewed love for what I do and who I am able to help doing it.

LD: Is there a recent professional achievement of which you’re particularly proud?

LRJ: I was recently invited to become a member of The Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only organization made up of 100 of the top plaintiffs’ personal injury attorneys from across the country. To be invited into membership you must have achieved certain successes as a trial attorney and their vetting is rigorous.

I was fortunate enough to have been inducted and it has been incredibly humbling to become a part of an organization whose lawyers have an unwavering commitment to fighting for victims and victims’ rights before a jury.

LD: What trends are you are seeing in your practice?

LRJ: I have seen an increase in the role of technology and social media in proving and disproving defenses. With smartphones in virtually everyone’s hands, you are virtually certain to be able to secure some photographs, videos, or social media posts that shed a light on exactly how a tragedy occurred.

I have been able to utilize red light camera video to prove a truck driver’s speed and negligence, bodycam video to prove the use of excessive force by a police officer, and Facebook and social media posts to prove violations of corporate policies that were denied under oath.

LD: What about a recent case that you’ve handled that made an impact on you?

LRJ: I recently obtained a record result for a young woman who presented to a hospital with complaints of chest pain weeks after giving birth. Despite significant complaints, the physicians evaluating her in the emergency department treated her symptoms without ordering the diagnostic tests needed to determine the cause of her pain. Tragically, as she waited for hours for the cause of her symptoms to be evaluated by CT scan, she arrested. It was later determined that she died of an aortic aneurysm that could have been diagnosed and successfully treated had a CT scan been ordered and she been taken to surgery.

I also recently handled a matter involving a lovely woman who was successfully treated for breast cancer and underwent a mastectomy and postmastectomy reconstructive surgery. Post-operatively, she had complaints of abdominal pain that were largely dismissed and ignored. After days of complaints, her physicians finally decided to

256

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

perform a CT scan of her abdomen. The test revealed a blood clot was blocking the blood supply to her intestines resulting in an ischemic and progressively dying bowel. She ultimately had to have a majority of her digestive system removed due to tissue death and necrosis. We were able to establish that if her complaints were not ignored and a CT scan was performed earlier the blood clot could have been diagnosed and removed before her bowel became ischemic. I was able to successfully prove her case, obtain a recovery for her and despite being told she would not survive more than a matter of months after the incident, my wife and I attended her wedding anniversary with 300 of her closest friends last December.

LD: What are some of the challenges of successfully litigating a case like that?

LRJ: Some of the challenges associated with pursuit of the case involving the woman with the ischemic bowel centered on the rarity of the condition she suffered from. It is uncommon to see a patient develop a clot in their aortic arch that prevents the perfusion of blood to the bowel. Additionally, the facility involved was a reputable facility with well qualified clinicians that you would not expect to ignore the signs and symptoms voiced by the patient for as long as they were ignored.

However, based upon information that was uncovered during discovery in the case, I was able to identify that a younger physician involved in the patient’s care in the days before the diagnosis was experiencing personal challenges that led to him no longer practicing medicine not long after the care at issue – for reasons that we believe and were prepared to prove – likely affected the quality of care rendered to the client. We were prepared to present radiologists, surgeons and vascular experts to prove that with timely diagnosis and treatment, the client would have had little if any injury, instead of the devastating injury she sustained as a result of the negligent care provided.

The client had consulted with another attorney who was unable to identify the experts necessary to prove the case. It was professionally rewarding to take on her case, and secure the testimony and opinions of experts needed to prove that what happened to her was preventable and should not have occurred. Since resolving her case, she has been able to secure the assistance she needs at home to allow her to live a better quality of life with her husband and family.

500

ONE OF THE THINGS I ENJOY MOST ABOUT BEING A PLAINTIFFS’ PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER IS THE LEARNING. WHEN A CLIENT COMES TO YOU AND PRESENTS A SET OF FACTS, PROVING THEIR CASE MAY REQUIRE YOU TO LEARN SOMETHING YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT BEFORE. LD: Is there a specific lesson you took from the case?

LRJ: The lesson to learn from this and much of the work we do as plaintiffs’ personal injury attorneys is how you can dramatically change a person’s life by believing in them and dedicating your time, resources and talents toward their quest for justice.

The former clients who have lunch or dinner with you years after their cases are over, or call to tell you of their marriages or anniversaries are a testament to the impact you have had on their lives. There is nothing more rewarding and professionally gratifying than to have a client who has suffered so much appreciate your efforts with a genuine, sincere and heartfelt “Thank You” and your knowing that you made a difference in their lives.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law?

LRJ: I attended the University of California, Davis, where I studied Managerial Economics. While there, my father, Larry Rogers Sr. was in the first few years of his second career and, as I was deciding what I wanted to do after college, his stories about the cases he was handling and people he was helping sparked my interest in how you could use the law to help people.

I was exposed by my father to the significant impact you could make on society and the life of others by representing victims as a trial lawyer who devoted himself or herself to leveling the playing field and fighting for the underdog. I recall one of the first significant cases my father was involved with involved a corporation that manufactured baby formula.

For cost-saving purposes, the company decided to remove an ingredient from the baby formula. It was ultimately determined that the removal of the ingredient deprived the children of a much needed nutrient and its absence detrimentally affected their development. Learning that case and the broad

ramifications that representing those clients had on their lives and the lives of other children who had taken that formula piqued my interest in pursuing a career in the law.

LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school?

LRJ: From high school on through college, I always worked. In high school, I worked at a small amusement park. In college, I worked a variety of jobs from the college dining hall to local restaurants and the Hunt’s Tomato Plant. I went from graduating at the University of California in the summer of 1990 to attending law school at IIT-Chicago Kent College of Law in the fall of 1990. I did not have any meaningful career or job between the two.

LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose your law school over another law school?

LRJ: I attended college in Northern California. Attending IIT-Chicago Kent College of Law allowed me to return to Chicago, where I was born and where a majority of my family lived.

LD: When did you know you wanted to be a trial lawyer helping injured people?

LRJ: By the time I finished my first year of law school, I knew that plaintiffs’ personal injury law was what I wanted to do. I had been exposed to my father’s work before attending law school, and during my first year, I worked as a law clerk at a competitor, and now good friend’s firm. There I was more exposed to what plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers do for people and then I knew it was the career I wanted to pursue.

I enjoyed my Trial Advocacy course in law school and was fortunate enough to obtain the American Jurisprudence award in my class.

LD: Do you have any advice now for current law school students?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

257

500

500 258

Jeremy Lieberman

Kenneth Lumb

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Gary Lincenberg

Eric Madden

BIRD MARELLA LOS ANGELES

REID COLLINS DALLAS

Chris Lind

Wendell Maddrey

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

Stuart Liner

Neal Manne

DLA LOS ANGELES

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

David Lira

Noiana Marigo

JOHNSTON HUTCHINSON & LIRA LOS ANGELES

FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

George Lombardi

David Marriott

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Kathy Love

Michael Marsh

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

AKERMAN MIAMI

Jonathan Lowy

Annika Martin

BRADY UNITED WASHINGTON, D.C.

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Paola Lozano

Katharine Martin

SKADDEN NEW YORK

WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LRJ: I would encourage and advise law students to make sure you study hard and learn to research and write like a lawyer. Once you graduate and secure your first job, the lessons on how to become a lawyer and practice law begin. If you work hard and devote yourself to mastering your craft, becoming a lawyer can be the most rewarding profession you could ever be blessed to become a part of.

LD: What was it like to practice with your father? Did you have other mentors?

LRJ: Having the opportunity to practice law with and try cases with my father has unquestionably been immensely helpful in shaping the course of my professional life. I call him the ultimate “reasonable man” in his approach and the level of professionalism and poise he carries both in his professional and in his personal life. He has taught me that being a lawyer is not a 9-to-5 job; it is who you are. To be successful at it, you must live it, breathe it and love it, and he practices what he preaches. He is the same man no matter whether he is in the courtroom, or in the barbershop.

Working with my father also gave me the opportunity to learn from Joe Power. Joe has a dogged tenacity and work ethic like no other. While he is one of the most accomplished lawyers in our field, he is also one of the humblest men you will ever meet.

These men have helped me learn what it means to be a plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer and to fight to the end for your client and what is right.

And, while not professional mentors, I have to acknowledge the powerful role my mother, Judith, played for shaping me to become the man I am today. She raised me to appreciate the importance of education, hard work and caring for others, all of which are at the heart of a good plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

LRJ: My practice has changed since the early part of my career in that I have developed a level of comfort and confidence that allows me to take on any fight I believe is worth fighting, no matter how seemingly difficult. As a result of gaining more courtroom and real-life experience, I believe I have learned to evaluate people, evaluate truth and appreciate genuineness. I try to take cases that allow me to work with and for people who I believe in and who believe in me. It makes the work much more rewarding and the fight much more worthwhile.

LD: Can you share a few lawyers you have come up against whom you admire, and why?

LRJ: I admire and respect lawyers who are “straight shooters” and are focused on getting the work done as opposed to engaging in gamesmanship. It is the way I was taught that good lawyers practice law. Lawyers like Mark Burden, John McGary, Amy Kane, Amy Pleuss and Chris Daddino come to mind as good lawyers who know what they are doing and are effective advocates and opponents.

LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as a “favorite” or one that is more memorable for certain reasons?

LRJ: I do not have a favorite client. I have fond memories of many, many clients. Two clients and now friends who I have fond memories of are Mr. Heng and Mr. Flowers. Both of these men were married to women who suffered catastrophic injuries and they were the most loving and caring husbands to their wives that you could imagine. I learned from each of them what it means to be a committed and devoted husband and spouse. Another client that stands out is Mr. Etheredge who, despite suffering

AS A RESULT OF GAINING MORE COURTROOM AND REALLIFE EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE I HAVE LEARNED TO EVALUATE PEOPLE, EVALUATE TRUTH AND APPRECIATE GENUINENESS. I TRY TO TAKE CASES THAT ALLOW ME TO WORK WITH AND FOR PEOPLE WHO I BELIEVE IN AND WHO BELIEVE IN ME. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

259

500

500 260

Reid Martin

Randi McGinn

MARTIN WALKER TYLER, TEXAS

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Jenny Martinez

Mike McKool

MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Mark Martins

Christopher Meade

OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS ALEXANDRIA, VA.

BLACKROCK NEW YORK

Tammy Marzigliano

Thomas Melsheimer

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

Colette Mattzie

Brian Melton

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Darin McAtee

Mark Mendelsohn

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Carlyn McCaffrey

Edward Micheletti

MCDERMOTT NEW YORK

SKADDEN WILMINGTON

Sigrid McCawley

Donald Migliori

BOIES SCHILLER FORT LAUDERDALE

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Joseph McCoy

Betsy Miller

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

one of the most horrific injuries you could imagine, he is not angry, resentful or vengeful, but rather every day, carries one of the biggest smiles on his face you could ever imagine. These are just a few of many, many clients that have left me with fond memories about life.

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

Or, how do you think others see you?

LRJ: I strive to be a combination of reasonable, tenacious and genuine because I believe that jurors want and need to hear evidence from someone who is a dogged advocate for truth.

LD: What are some of the challenges you face in your current leadership roles?

LRJ: I am currently a partner at Power Rogers and incoming president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. As a partner at our firm and incoming president, my responsibilities extend well beyond just handling cases. The fight for our clients not only includes preparing and presenting their cases before a jury, but also includes fighting for fairness in federal and state legislatures, fighting to have their cases heard during crises like that presented by Covid-19, and helping them navigate through challenges they face every day while dealing with their circumstance. While the demands can seem endless, I appreciate that what comes with the privilege of being a lawyer is an awesome responsibility to serve.

I appreciate my role and cherish the opportunity to serve my firm and my profession.

LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your firm in the coming months?

LRJ: In the coming months, our firm will actively work with leaders of other firms and bar associations to assist the courts in their efforts to get the court system back on track after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Our firm and all others will be facing a new normal as we learn how to manage our practices and our lives going forward and we will meet the challenges that lie ahead. Our firm has been ranked the top firm in terms of results secured for its clients the last 10 years in a row according to the Chicago Lawyer Settlement Survey. We are very proud of the firm and its accomplishments and look forward to working hard in the coming months and years to continue to serve our clients at the very highest levels.

LD: How is your firm unique?

LRJ: As a firm, Power Rogers concentrates on cases involving the most severely injured who

are in need of the very best representation. We will spare no expense fighting for our clients and presenting the very best case that can be presented before a jury. We want to be judged on the relationships we develop with and the results we secure for our clients.

I love what I do and who I am able to do it with. We have a culture within our firm of fighting for victims and victims’ rights and it is an honor to work with like-minded lawyers who all strive for the same thing: fairness and justice for our clients.

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office?

LRJ: I am husband to a wonderful, bright and beautiful wife, Ralonda, who I enjoy private dinners, workouts, and vacations with when we can get away. I am the father to four children. My son, Dominique Rogers, is just finishing up law school and I have three daughters: Erin, who is 19; Sydney, who is 18; and Jordan, who is 15. When I’m not working, I enjoy family time doing whatever their hearts desire which ranges from vacationing, to boating, to bike riding, to watching them make TikTok videos.

LD: Can you describe a few pro bono or community activities that are important to you?

LRJ: I work with elected officials on pressing issues that arise and often provide counsel, input or direction. I have had the pleasure of serving as a County Commissioner for the last almost 20 years. As a Commissioner I have the opportunity to work with elected officials, community organizations and citizens throughout Cook County which has been a wonderful opportunity and great experience. I also work with the Cook County Bar Association, the oldest African American Bar Association in the country, and serving as one of its past presidents is one of my most proud accomplishments.

LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system?

LRJ: The movie “Marshall” about Thurgood Marshall.

LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now?

LRJ: If I were not a lawyer right now, I would probably want to be one. I cannot imagine doing anything else.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

261

500

500 Ted Leopold COHEN MILSTEIN (PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.)

262

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

TED LEOPOLD FLINT, MICHIGAN. SYNONYMOUS WITH TOXIC

water. Sickened children. And astounding failures by public and private entities all the way up to the Governor’s office.

The city’s water crisis is also an apt illustration of the level of resources and dedication to achieving restitution and accountability that has become a hallmark of Cohen Milstein.

“I think this was very important for the residents of Flint, many of whom felt like they were not seen or heard by the very people who are there to keep them safe – their government,” says Ted Leopold, who is colead counsel for the class of plaintiffs who recovered $600M from the state of Michigan.

The Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.-based partner serves as Co-Chair of Cohen Milstein’s Complex Tort and Consumer Protection practices, which as always is playing a lead role in several of the nation’s most high-profile tort and environmental disputes. Leopold is also proud of his firm’s role handling businessinterruption insurance cases arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice?

Ted Leopold: My work is focused on complex torts, including auto safety, managed care litigation, environmental contamination claims and consumers class actions. Many of our cases often involve novel legal issues or are nationally significant. That said, one of the things that sets Cohen Milstein apart is the level of the firm’s practice addressing these types of cases and its strong culture of collaboration, which allows every attorney to learn about cutting-edge new issues and support various litigation matters throughout the firm. As Co-Chair of the firm’s tort and consumer practices, I spend a lot of my time drawing on the deep experience and strengths of my colleagues across the firm and brainstorming new ideas to address some of our clients’ toughest challenges.

LD: Is there a recent case you can highlight for us?

TL: In August, we reached a partial $600M settlement in the Flint water crisis litigation. We are proud that nearly 80 percent of the settlement funds will go to impacted minors, with the balance for adults, property and business damages and a special educa-

PHOTO BY: JOSH RITCHIE

BY JOHN RYAN tion fund to support children who are suffering the long-term effects of lead poisoning. The agreement is the result of five years of litigation and 18 months of court-supervised negotiations and includes a detailed claims process that will be made available to all victims without any discrimination or favoritism.

The settlement will start to help residents of Flint who were victims of reckless decisions made by governmental officials. Sadly, the Flint community faced devastating health and property injuries as a result.

While we can never undo the damage that occurred, we are pleased that we were finally able to secure this long overdue measure of justice.

A little background on the case for your readers – beginning in 2014, Flint, Mich., city and Michigan state officials, including Governor [Rick] Snyder, and engineering firms under their management, blatantly failed to provide the more than 90,000 Flint residents and businesses with safe drinking water, instead providing them with poisonous, lead-tainted water from the Flint River.

This water – which had concentrations up to 880 times the EPA’s legal limit in one instance – made its way into homes, businesses and eventually into the bodies of Flint residents, leading to an outbreak of Legionnaires and other significant health complications, particularly in Flint’s children, who are more susceptible to long-lasting effects of lead poisoning than adults.

It wasn’t until shortly after deposing Snyder in June 2020 that the State agreed to settle. Litigation against the engineering firms and the Environmental Protection Agency is ongoing.

LD: What have been some of the challenges of this litigation?

TL: To be clear, the litigation is not over. As I said, we still have ongoing cases against the EPA and two private engineering firms whose professional negligent advice led to widespread lead poisoning.

In this case, it was the vastness of the potential damages that was hard to wrap our arms around, given the size of the class; the sub-classes involved, particularly of children and their health issues; and the amount of time that has transpired since the initial contamination in 2014. Some of the children who were poisoned so many years ago are now adults.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

263

500

500 264

Michael J. Miller

Majed Nachawati

THE MILLER LAW FIRM ORANGE, VA.

FEARS NACHAWATI DALLAS

Ted Mirvis

Henry Nassau

WACHTELL NEW YORK

DECHERT PHILADELPHIA

David Mitchell

Daniel Neff

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Steve Molo

Sharon Nelles

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Michelle Moore

Robert Nelson

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Laurence Moy

David Nevin

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

NEVIN BENJAMIN BOISE, IDAHO

Francis Patrick Murphy

Sonia Nijjar

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

SKADDEN PALO ALTO

Scott Musoff

Luke Nikas

SKADDEN NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Linda Myers

Victoria Nugent

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

There were a multitude of vitally important and complex issues that touched on health, environmental testing and racial discrimination, not to mention fraud.

There was also the matter of convincing the court to reinstate former Michigan Governor Snyder as a key defendant in this class action with new evidence from a parallel criminal case against Michigan health officials. I believe that was a pivotal moment whereby the court sided with us that Snyder’s office not only knew about the health consequence, but covered it up, and “misled” Flint residents and “even encouraged them to continue to drink and bathe in the water.”

I was fortunate enough to work with a wonderful group of attorneys and together we were able to find creative ways to quickly and deftly navigate these hurdles.

LD: In addition to some of the terms of the settlement, what do you think the impact of the litigation will be?

TL: First and foremost, it lets our clients and the public know that the judicial process is available to everyone, regardless of the size of the private or public entity they are taking on. The courts create a level playing field – everyone has full and equal access to pursue justice under the law.

Longer term, this reinforces the notion that cities and states cannot just deny their constituents access to clean water. All people are entitled to clean water, and this issue of water contamination, where private or public entities think they can get away with harming certain communities, is becoming a more salient issue.

LD: What other types of cases are taking up your time today?

TL: In addition to the issues we confronted in Flint, another area we are really focused on is PFAS (perand polyfluoroalkyl substances) litigation, where we have seen corporate indifference and negligence to water safety. Due to the callous nature by which corporate America has failed to understand or respect our environment, years of dumping toxins or “forever chemicals” into our water has finally caught up to our communities.

Where we see wrongs, we try to right them, and I am proud that Cohen Milstein is at the forefront of PFAS litigation. We have joined with three other law firms to form a unique and powerful working group that brings together the skills and experience necessary to represent communities facing difficult decisions

about how to respond to PFAS contamination.

For instance, we are currently co-lead counsel on the Cape Fear River environmental contamination class action in North Carolina, where we allege DuPont illegally discharged these “forever” chemicals into the river and lied to government regulators about its safety measures. In addition to this case, we are working with multiple cities and municipalities who have experienced contamination in their water systems.

We are laser focused on how corporations treat the public and we are working vigorously within the courts to ensure the rules and regulations that are designed to keep our environment and people safe are enforced. When PFAS contamination does occur, we want to ensure that damages are paid by the companies responsible, not the impacted communities.

LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as particularly significant, or one that is more memorable for certain reasons?

TL: Aside from Flint, I would say the case brought on behalf of Caitlyn Chipps against Humana Health Insurance has had a lasting impact. This was the first of its kind managed care abuse litigation in which we successfully proved that Humana had denied care to Chipps, a disabled child with cerebral palsy.

The American Association for Justice has called it one of the most influential lawsuits to mitigate corruption in the health care industry and it involved over 300 motions to compel to get documents from Humana. I am particularly proud of how the Chipps litigation brought to the forefront the many unethical practices in the managed care industry. As a result of the Chipps litigation and verdict, many of the major managed care companies began to look at their medically necessary practices.

LD: Can you tell us more about it?

TL: The background on the Chipps case was a textbook matter about the wrongs of the managed care industry. Caitlyn was born with cerebral palsy and she regularly received physical, speech and occupational therapy under Humana. Under a new policy, she became a part of a medical case management program. Then one day, Humana sent a letter to Caitlyn’s parents saying that she was no longer a part of a medical case management program and she would no longer receive physical, speech or occupational therapy. Period.

Through discovery, we came to find out that Humana worked with Coopers & Lybrand to save over $80M

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

265

500

500 SINCE WE ARE PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON HELPING UNDERSERVED OR VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WHO DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE A VOICE, WE MUST BE FEARLESS ADVOCATES IN THE COURTROOM. OUR CLIENTS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH US KNOW THAT WE WILL NEVER BACK DOWN FROM A FIGHT. in the southeastern region of the United States. So, they developed a business model on how to do that.

Their solution was to end their case management program for kids they considered “static,” that is, kids who were not running into hospitals all the time. So, one day Humana threw out over 100 catastrophically ill kids like Caitlyn.

work that will have a direct impact on small businesses and is another example of misconduct by the insurance industry. In this instance, a large portion of the industry appears to have decided to not honor their commitments to these small businesses, which is having devastating consequences for families trying to navigate the economic fallout of this pandemic.

This case really served as a springboard, and we have expanded our managed care abuse litigation work beyond traditional managed care and health insurance companies to cases against workers’ compensation insurance carriers who intentionally interfere in the provision of care and treatment to injured workers, which is a unique area that many law firms are not involved with.

We are also proud to be doing important work fighting sexual abuse, trafficking and domestic violence.

The firm has a team of preeminent attorneys that specialize in this area. With each new case it is hard to believe there is so much of this conduct occurring, but our team does amazing work protecting the rights of those who have suffered from this horrible abuse.

Another first was our work related to the Takata airbag litigation when we represented a Florida woman who, tragically, was paralyzed from the neck down when a Takata airbag exploded in her car. Our work was groundbreaking in that we were the only firm to take depositions from high-ranking officials in Japan.

The disclosures we uncovered helped further other litigation against the company.

What these cases show is that our firm is always focused on representing the underdog. We stand up for individuals against corporate greed and other bad actors, and the beauty of this type of litigation is that it demonstrates how the judicial system can put everyone on equal footing.

LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your practice or firm in the coming months or years?

TL: We are always looking to see how we can try and bring about justice for those who have been harmed.

Right now, we are one of the leading firms in the country handling business interruption insurance litigation as it relates to Covid-19. This is important

266

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you do to try to “sell” about your firm to potential recruits – how is it unique?

TL: Our results speak for themselves, but what I think distinguishes our firm is that we believe deeply in the justice system and the work we are doing, and we put our clients first above all else.

Our goal is always to bring the strongest measure of justice for our clients, no matter who we are up against. Since we are particularly focused on helping underserved or vulnerable communities who do not always have a voice, we must be fearless advocates in the courtroom. Our clients who have worked with us know that we will never back down from a fight.

I believe we have brilliant lawyers at our firm. But, what sets them apart is that they are true advocates for creating positive change in our communities and helping those less fortunate. It is rare to find a firm that has both. This is not just a job for us – it is personal. We believe deeply in the work we are doing.

500

Clare O’Brien

Stephanie Parker

SHEARMAN NEW YORK

JONES DAY ATLANTA

Jeannemarie O’Brien

Michael Paskin

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Sean O’Shea

Kathy Patrick

CADWALADER NEW YORK

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

Kevin Orsini

Latosha Lewis Payne

CRAVATH NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Gregory Ostling

Brandon Peak

WACHTELL NEW YORK

BUTLER WOOTEN COLUMBUS, GA.

Jennifer Pafiti

Sandra Peake

POMERANTZ LOS ANGELES

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Grant Palmer

Gerry Pecht

BLANK ROME PHILADELPHIA

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

Brian Panish

Jason Peltz

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Robin Panovka

Luis Penalver

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

267

500

500 Chris Seeger SEEGER WEISS (RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ)

268

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

CHRIS SEEGER FEW LAWYERS IN LAWDRAGON’S 15-YEAR

history have built a track record like Chris Seeger’s in the area of complex multidistrict litigation and other class actions. The SeegerWeiss founder has earned many billions of dollars for plaintiffs across a wide range of personal injury, product liability, toxic tort and pharmaceutical cases. Among his high-profile work from recent years, Seeger served as co-lead counsel of the plaintiff class in its settlement with the NFL in the concussion litigation. Four years ago, Seeger became part of just the second class of “Lawdragon Legends” for having made the Lawdragon 500 guide at least 10 times. It’s no wonder Seeger says he has “the best job in the world.”

The onetime corporate defense lawyer draws strength from his family – he has six children – and his dedication to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. While the pandemic has put a hold on sparring with opponents and most in-person trial practice, Seeger will be poised to display his black belt skills in both environments when the time comes.

Lawdragon: The NFL concussion litigation was among the more famous civil cases of the past decade or so. With a little bit of distance now, do you have any thoughts or big-picture takeaways about the challenges, outcomes or impact of that litigation and settlement?

Chris Seeger: The NFL concussion litigation got everyone thinking about the implications of contact sports, and not just football. It sparked debate about the dangers associated with concussive and sub-concussive head blows at every level: Parents are now aware when making the decision to let their kids play contact sports; rules have changed to not only protect NFL players but younger athletes as well; and we were able to secure a massive 65-year fund worth well over $1B to compensate retired players for head injuries they sustained playing in the NFL while the league hid these dangers. I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to lead a case that helped change the game for the better.

BY JOHN RYAN loss and damage as a result of 3M’s defective ear plugs, which they sold to the U.S. government. I’m also co-lead counsel in the PPI Product Liability Litigation representing clients who’ve suffered chronic and acute kidney damage from marketed Proton Pump Inhibitors like Prilosec, Prevacid, Nexium and Protonix, among others. And I just completed negotiating, along with my co-counsel, a settlement with Mercedes and Bosch, which provides more than $700M for car owners who purchased Mercedes diesel vehicles that we alleged had “cheat devices” that allowed them to skirt state and federal emissions regulations. I’m also co-counsel in a case against Intel for making defective CPUs that fail to protect private information from being stolen by malicious actors and hackers. I love getting to learn about so many different issues, each of which has had a huge impact on the people we represent.

LD: Can you share any information about how the pandemic is affecting your practice or the firm? If this is going to be a “years not months” situation, are there ways in which you think the pandemic will have a lasting impact on how massively complex cases are managed?

CS: There’s no doubt that the pandemic is having a dramatic and probably lasting impact on how cases are managed. Courts are doing a great job keeping things moving, but there really is only so much you can do remotely. When lawyers aren’t appearing face to face in court, they lose the opportunities that can only occur with those face-to-face interactions.

Settlement negotiations in particular are slow. Some of that has to do with not being able to get in a room together, but I also think the pandemic has provided big companies the opportunity to put the brakes on these talks and to hold on to their money a little bit longer. I’m a big believer that trials drive settlements. Right now there are very few civil trials being set, and those set before the pandemic have been dramatically delayed.

LD: How about some of your other recent matters?

What has been taking up your time recently?

LD: I remember from a prior interview that you have five kids. How have you managed as a family during the past several months?

CS: My time is being spent on a few matters: I’m currently co-lead counsel in the 3M Combat Arms Ear Plug case, representing military veterans and active duty servicemembers who suffered hearing

CS: Ha! That was an old interview. I’m now up to six kids. There’s a lot bad about this pandemic. People are out of work. Businesses have suffered or closed.

People have died and those that have recovered are

PHOTO BY: GREGG DELMAN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

269

500

500 270

Elizabeth Peterson

Shawn Rabin

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Joseph Petrosinelli

Brian Ratner

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Anthony Phillips

Shawn Raymond

MCKOOL SMITH HOUSTON

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

John Michael Phillips

Noelle Reed

PHILLIPS & HUNT JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

SKADDEN HOUSTON

Andy Pitts

William T. Reid IV

CRAVATH NEW YORK

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Eric Posner

Julie Goldsmith Reiser

MOLOLAMKEN/UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL CHICAGO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joseph Power

Lorin Reisner

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Steven Quattlebaum

Alison Ressler

QUATTLEBAUM GROOMS LITTLE ROCK, ARK.

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES

Patrick Quinn

Ana Reyes

CADWALADER NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I THINK THAT I HAVE THE BEST JOB IN THE WORLD. EVERY CASE IS VERY DIFFERENT SO YOU’RE ALWAYS LEARNING. experiencing long-term harm. It’s hard to put a good spin on any of that. But, to be completely honest, I’ve really enjoyed being home with my family and doing simple things like eating meals together and being home when they wake up. My oldest kids who no longer live at home I’ve been getting to see more often, too. On that level, it’s been awesome for me.

LD: Is there a case from the past – maybe one that hasn’t been talked about recently – that stands out as particularly memorable for one reason or another?

CS: Vioxx will always stand out for me no matter how many years pass. It was one of the largest and most important cases I’ve ever handled, and it was handto-hand combat for years. We tried several cases and ultimately achieved a $4.85B settlement. But the case was important for many more reasons. It had a huge impact on how clinical trial data gets reported, and it shined a light on the practice of concealing negative clinical trial information – or any negative information – about a drug being marketed. It was very common for Big Pharma companies to do, and it ended up hurting a lot of people. For me it’s a meaningful victory.

LD: When your cases do get to trial, what’s your favorite part of that process?

CS: High-stakes trials like the ones my firm is often involved in are difficult in every respect. Marshalling the record, knowing the law, preparing for evidentiary battles, getting ready to direct and cross-examine witnesses – it’s hard to say any of that is enjoyable.

But if I were to compare the process to a boxing or Jiu Jitsu match, I’d say that you put in all of that hard work so the actual fight is easy. Coming through that period of preparation is very satisfying, and there are big advantages. You know the case as well as humanly possible at that point! There is no better feeling than winning and there is no worse feeling than losing.

LD: Are you still active with Jiu Jitsu, even if competitions aren’t happening?

CS: It’s been hard to stay active during the pandemic.

I can still train my body and work on technique, but a big part of Jiu Jitsu, like boxing, is sparring. That is how you really learn to implement your technique, being there live and giving it 100 percent. Without it,

you’re in limbo. So while I can’t spar right now, when this is over, I’ll pick up right where I left off. Hey, I’m only 60! I plan on sparring 25- and 30-year olds well into my 70s and 80s. It keeps you young. Everyone should try it.

LD: I also recall your background in being a carpenter.

Do you still dabble in that type of work or hobby?

What else might be getting your through these unusual times?

CS: Anyone who knows me knows that I am very proud of my working-class background and the fact that I put myself through college and law school from money I made working as a carpenter. But, to be completely honest, the day I graduated law school, I retired my hammer and never looked back! It’s very frustrating to my wife that I act like I know how to do everything in construction but that I refuse to actually do it.

LD: What advice do you have for law students who want a career similar to yours?

CS: I think that I have the best job in the world. Every case is very different so you’re always learning. I always encourage law students to consider doing the same kind of work where you can really affect – and improve – people’s lives and love what you’re doing while doing it. If you’re interested in doing the most exciting legal work there is, apply to a firm that does this kind of work, clerk for a judge handling an MDL, or just jump in and try to get work in an active MDL. Once you’re in, then it’s on you. Impress folks with your work ethic and smarts. Make the best of whatever opportunities you get.

LD: Is there an extra-practice pro bono, public interest, or community commitment that you wish to highlight?

CS: I’m really proud of how committed our firm is to doing work like this. We’ve sent our attorneys to the border to help reunite families. Our partners support community organizations such as Oasis, which provides educational and social service programs to women and children, as well as public interest initiatives to upload election law and voter rights with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, among many other commitments. And we’re always looking for more pro bono opportunities.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

271

Michael Kelly WALKUP MELODIA (SAN FRANCISCO)

500

MICHAEL KELLY THE ATTORNEYS AT WALKUP MELODIA KELLY

& Schoenberger are close-knit, hard-working and effective, with a consistent track record of multimillion-dollar verdicts for injured individuals and their families. We chatted with name partner Michael Kelly on how the firm is handling an influx of work this year while managing the team dynamics of a remote office, continuing to nurture the next generation of trial lawyers, and weighing the risks and benefits of taking depositions and doing hearings over Zoom.

Kelly is a long-time advocate of the Seventh Amendment’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial, which he calls “an essential right” that needs to be “revered, cultivated, and above all, respected.” He has hopes that respect will be renewed with the incoming Biden/Harris administration.

Lawdragon: What type of work is the firm seeing these days? Have things shifted in the pandemic?

Michael Kelly: We’ve seen an increase in large pharma cases, consumer home products and business insurance. We’re working on cases involving rideshare companies, where drivers have not been properly screened, trained or supervised. Our aim there is to get better control over the hiring and vetting process. One of my partners is involved in the California litigation against Juul and its vaping products.

We are involved in a number of cases that seek to extend traditional product liability exposure to Amazon.

Amazon has done a good job in California of avoiding product liability exposure, and that’s changing. Our legislature is clarifying their obligation to be treated like any brick and mortar retailer. Historically Amazon has argued it’s not a merchant. It’s only a marketplace that has no responsibility, which only facilitates sales by others. It has taken no responsibility for vetting the products it sells. If I bought some cologne at Macy’s and it turned out that it contained chemical components that are poisonous, I would have a product liability claim both against the maker of the cologne and Macy’s. But if I bought it from Amazon, I’d have to go chase the maker of the cologne in Indonesia because Amazon says it’s not the seller. That is changing.

LD: How is Walkup Melodia preparing the next generation of trial lawyers?

MK: We are a modest sized firm, with just 20 lawyers, but we try more than our share of cases. Of those 20

PHOTO BY: MICHAEL SEXTON

BY ALISON PREECE lawyers, eight are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

I think most everyone recognizes ABOTA as the premier association of civil trial lawyers, whether you are doing commercial work, personal injury, intellectual property, or what have you. ABOTA requires that you try 20 civil cases to verdict as lead counsel as a threshold for election. I think that speaks to our firm’s culture and work ethic: We are committed to trying lawsuits. For us, that’s step one.

Step two is making sure, in the vanishing trial era, that we make a conscious effort to involve new lawyers, younger lawyers, in cases going to trial. We will take cases precisely because we recognize they are likely going to trial to get our new lawyers in the courtroom.

We recognize that there is only so much mentoring or teaching you can do in a virtual setting. Trial lawyers are born in the courtroom. We try to make sure that the associate’s responsibilities are significant. We want our young lawyers involved in matters that affect the disposition of the case. Because we’re small enough, we can position our younger attorneys to do meaningful work.

Our small size also means that every principal’s door is open to every young lawyer who comes to work for us. Whether somebody’s been here six weeks or six years, they can walk into my office or my partner’s and talk to the people who are leading and shaping the cases that we pursue.

Over time, our practice has changed, and the number of cases that get tried has decreased. But even though it is a bit more difficult to give them trial access, we make a conscious effort to get people into trial. We make it known in our legal community that we are available to co-try cases. You cannot become a good trial lawyer by all of a sudden starting to try cases 10 years into practice. It doesn’t make any sense. A great pianist could not become a great pianist by reading sheet music for 10 years and then playing her first concert in the 11th year of reading sheet music. The only way you get to be good at trying cases is by trying cases.

LD: Does the firm also provide any outside training?

MK: We do. I sit on the national board of directors for NITA, the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. In my opinion NITA is the premier provider of in-court litigation training. Our preferred training has been to have our associates go to a NITA public program. There

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

273

500

500 are usually somewhere between 30-48 practitioners from across the country at a NITA trial skills program.

Our lawyers get exposure to practitioners with differing specialties and a different way of looking at facts.

to be able to assess how the judge, opposing counsel and jurors are relating to the witness. That’s not something you can simultaneously determine with 14 boxes on the screen.

LD: How has the pandemic impacted your practice?

LD: It’s a lot to ask of jurors. Have you had to do any contentious depositions or the like over Zoom so far?

MK: It’s been difficult not being in court. But we have done well in terms of personnel – no layoffs or pay cuts. But culture-wise, I miss being able to walk into one of my colleague’s offices and say, “What do you think about this?” Or talking to the younger lawyers about a recent appellate court decision. I miss interacting with people without sending a memo or a formal email. The physical separation makes us all less close personally.

LD: Your ability to help your clients must be hamstrung without full access to the courts these days, too.

MK: Without question. Every judge in America would agree that trial dates settle cases. It’s the reason why we file all our cases shortly after we’re retained. It sends a message that we are serious. Right now there’s no urgency; defendants are not worried that a jury is going to tell them, “You did this wrong and you owe money.” That is a problem.

We won’t see jury trials in California on a widespread basis until April of 2021, is my guess. What does that mean? That means a year of backlog, not just in the civil cases, but the criminal cases as well. And since criminal cases are given statutory priority, the court system must clean up the backlog of criminal cases before we can even schedule civil cases.

LD: What are your thoughts on conducting a whole trial over Zoom?

MK: I think that would be unconstitutional. In that scenario you are talking about private trials. An opaque system. Plus, for jurors, their historic work as a team is frustrated. There is no personal trust-building among jurors. The judge and counsel have no idea what’s going on in the juror’s location – whether they are multitasking, texting, reading the paper, watching TV on another screen. Without being in the presence of witnesses, jurors can’t fulfill the job of assessing the weight and believability of testimony – how does the witness appear while testifying? Do they appear nervous? What is the witness’s attitude, their demeanor towards the manner that they’re testifying about?

We look at somebody in a Zoom square and cannot tell whether their hands are fidgeting and tearing up little pieces of paper, or their knees are shaking or their foot is constantly tapping the floor. I need

274

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MK: I have. Recently I had a case where opposing counsel wanted to have the witness wear a mask during the Zoom deposition.

LD: You’re kidding!

MK: I wish I was. I’m not going to move forward where a juror cannot see the witness’s face and lips and eyes. We are creating impressions. We are asking jurors to judge weight and believability. A masked witness is not an acceptable situation.

When parties are given the right by the Constitution to confront and cross examine, that means confront and cross examine. That doesn’t mean look at somebody wearing a mask through a TV lens without the benefit that comes from physical proximity to the witness, to the defendant, to the judge and court staff. We need jurors in the same place at the same moment all together seeing and experiencing the same thing, not somebody with a bad computer or too-small screen with bad WiFi. LD: Last time you talked to us, you spoke about the decline of the civil jury trial. Do you think that the court shutdowns from the pandemic are going to accelerate their demise, or do you think maybe we’ll see a renewed appreciation for the court system?

MK: It’s a great question, and one a lot of people have asked. I’m heartened by what I’m seeing. I think there was a risk that we would see the more cynical forces of evil say, “Oh, well this proves you don’t need jury trials. We can do this in a more expedient and cheaper manner.” Quicker and cheaper is always the excuse: We could do it faster, we could do it cheaper.

But justice needs to be made correctly. While I don’t favor justice delayed, I favor doing things right and not doing things in a hurry-up fashion.

The budget argument is: Zoom is cheap. We don’t need courthouses. We don’t need court attendants.

We don’t need bailiffs. We don’t need custodians. We don’t need the electric light bills. I’m really heartened to see that the judiciary, almost uniformly has said, “No, actually, we do need in-person jury trials.” There’s a reason the civil jury trial is in the Bill of Rights. View the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2020/12/15/triallawyer-michael-kelly-on-cultivating-the-next-generation.

500

Michael T. Reynolds

Sharon Robertson

CRAVATH NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

Ekwan Rhow

Larry Rogers Jr.

BIRD MARELLA LOS ANGELES

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Joseph Rice

Christine Rolph

MOTLEY RICE MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Philip Richter

Anthony Romero

FRIED FRANK NEW YORK

ACLU NEW YORK

David Rievman

Steven Rosenblum

SKADDEN NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Robert Riley

Eric Rosof

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

WACHTELL NEW YORK

David Ring

Hannah Ross

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Darren Robbins

Joel Rubinstein

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

John Roberts

Samuel Rudman

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

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

275

Travis Lenkner, Ashley Keller, and Adam Gerchen KELLER LENKNER (CHICAGO)

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

500

Kathryn Ruemmler

Susan Saltzstein

GOLDMAN SACHS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Walter Ruiz

Patrick Salvi

RUIZ LAW ARLINGTON, VA.

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Rick Rule

Patrick Salvi II

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Antony Ryan

Hollis Salzman

CRAVATH NEW YORK

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

Edward Ryan

P. Anthony Sammi

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHARLOTTE, N.C.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Elizabeth Sacksteder

Katie Sammons

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Faiza Saeed

Christina Guerola Sarchio

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ronald Safer

Richard Sarver

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS

Kelli Sager

John Savarese

DAVIS WRIGHT LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

277

Kalpana Srinivasan SUSMAN GODFREY (LOS ANGELES)

500

KALPANA SRINIVASAN HERE’S THE THING ABOUT WONDER WOMAN:

She’s fiction. From 1941. But the notion of the beautiful, brilliant woman who has – and does - it all is powerful.

“It’s just a setup for disappointment and failure, because when does anybody have it all, and what does it even mean to have it all?” asks Kalpana Srinivasan, a force of nature who was elected Susman Godfrey managing partner this year alongside Neal Manne.

To many who know or have met her in court, Srinivasan very much fits the mold. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 2004 and clerking with the late esteemed 9th Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher, she joined Susman and rocketed up the ranks to partnership in Los Angeles in four years. She secures court appointments as lead counsel in class actions, and recently won a nearly $1B intellectual property case for HouseCanary, a disruptor in the real estate industry.

She’s bringing structural relief to the music industry, while representing artists whose master recordings were destroyed – and routinely does deep dives into complex new technology for an array of IP cases.

In her “spare time,” Srinivasan relaxes with complicated modern dance choreography and nods off reading bedtime stories to her son.

Lawdragon: You’re handling some fascinating cases in the entertainment industry these days. Let’s talk about some of them.

Kalpana Srinivasan: We just finished a case for Universal Cable Productions, which produced the TV show “Dig,” for the USA Network. Dig was being filmed in Israel in 2014 when three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and later found dead. When the deaths were attributed to Hamas, it retaliated with rocket fire targeting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv where the show was being filmed.

Universal’s security team could no longer guarantee the security of the crew and cast on the ground – there were Universal crew members taking shelter in bunkers – so they had to move production to New Mexico and Croatia. When Universal sought coverage from its insurer, Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, they were turned down. Atlantic cited act of war exclusions saying it did not have to pay.

LD: Why bother buying insurance if you aren’t protected in situations like that.

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

BY KATRINA DEWEY KS: Exactly. And that’s what the 9th Circuit held, that this was not an act of war at all as it did not involve fighting between two sovereign nations - Hamas was not a sovereign entity and has long been deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

And Universal had specifically negotiated for coverage in the event of acts of terrorism.

LD: What do you enjoy about a case like “Dig”? You handle cases with far greater dollar amounts, but the entertainment cases are always so interesting.

KS: It was really fascinating to focus on this tight-knit sequence of events – from the pre-production planning for Dig through the rocket fire attacks in Israel to the insurer’s decision to deny coverage. We were set to try a case laying out that story and whether the insurer acted in bad faith by denying coverage after the liability issues had been resolved in our client’s favor.

The trial date originally overlapped with the appeal in the HouseCanary matter in San Antonio but the trial was continued a few weeks, making it possible for me to both argue the appeal and get ready to open at trial. The Dig case then settled the night before trial. It was a wild few weeks in lawyer life right before Covid and the lockdowns hit.

LD: Will you talk a bit about the class-action case that you won against SiriusXM on behalf of Flo & Eddie, which owned the rights to “Happy Together” and other recordings by The Turtles and the Pandora case you are still pursuing?

KS: We represented a class of individuals and groups that made sound recordings before 1972. When we originally started working on that case, there was a gap in the law. The post-1972 sound recordings were covered by federal copyright law, but pre-1972 recordings were not. So there was an open question about whether California law entitled the owners to royalties from public performances of pre-1972 sound recordings.

The district court found that a public performance right existed entitling the artists to royalties and certified a class. Effectively, it became a class where liability had already been determined, because there’s no question that SiriusXM was playing those pre-1972 sound recordings but took the position that they basically could just play them for free.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

279

500

500 280

William Savitt

Jodi Schwartz

WACHTELL NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Dick Sayles

Christopher Seeger

BRADLEY DALLAS

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

Eric Schiele

Jay Sekulow

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ivan Schlager

Jennifer Selendy

KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, D.C.

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Scott Schlesinger

Philippe Selendy

SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES FORT LAUDERDALE

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Allison Schneirov

Joseph Sellers

SKADDEN NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

George Schoen

Karen Patton Seymour

CRAVATH NEW YORK

GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK

Richard Schoenberger

Kannon Shanmugam

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ian Schuman

Nina Shaw

LATHAM NEW YORK

DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

We obtained a settlement with SiriusXM so that all the class members got royalties and are continuing to get royalties under California law. SiriusXM retained the right to take the underlying question up on appeal, which is, does this performance right exist?

It’s been a long, interesting story, and in the middle of all of it, the Music Modernization Act came out, which confirmed that, yes, if you have a sound recording from pre-1972, you are entitled to royalty protection for that. So, the federal law has tried to now address this gaping hole that existed in the patchwork of state and federal law on copyright issues, but it doesn’t fully resolve all the claims at issue. We still have the appellate issue hanging out there.

We have another action for Flo & Eddie against Pandora that has bounced through the 9th Circuit, the California Supreme Court and is now back in district court. The impact of the Music Modernization Act is playing out in that forum.

LD: You’ve made some real strides in helping musicians get fairly compensated in this digital age.

KS: What’s interesting is that, in the big picture, we’re helping out all parties in the equation. We brought a copyright case against Spotify, which doesn’t have the legally complex question of whether the right exists or not. It was just a straight-up copyright infringement class action. Again, Spotify was streaming these compositions, streaming songs, and what happens is there’s a lot of copyrights that go into a piece of music: the sound recording, the composition. Making sure every rights-holder gets compensated before you start streaming on a digital platform where there’s so much music is more complicated than people might imagine.

In that case, there were people who weren’t getting paid for their compositions. They had federal copyrights, registered copyrights, and they were not getting paid for them. We settled that case on a class-wide basis, before class certification. It enabled all of us going forward to think about how Spotify and others can do a better job of making sure they identify who needs to get paid and getting them paid.

That settlement is in process. People are in the process of claiming their rights and getting compensated. As they go and claim, they enter all of this information about their composition, their identity, how to reach them, to try and cure the problem on a going-forward basis. We were able to create structural relief for Spotify, by getting them this information from class members that they want. They want to make sure they’re paying people. They just don’t

know how to do it. So, we’re building an informational database for them to resolve that going forward.

LD: Through your career, including going back to your time as a journalist for the Associated Press, you’ve seen technology and its impact on businesses kind of outstrip the ability of existing structures to keep up.

When people conceived of a Spotify, just for example, it wouldn’t shock me that they wouldn’t foresee all of the rights-holders that they would need to compensate.

KS: Right. The class action gave Spotify an opportunity to try to figure out how to fix this systematically.

LD: Meanwhile, it just wouldn’t be economically worthwhile for the vast majority of the artists to try to bring individual lawsuits.

KS: Absolutely. It doesn’t make sense for them to do that. There may be some artist out there who has the wherewithal and wants to make the point, or somebody who has some enormous catalog, but in reality, many of them don’t. In the pre-1972 cases, for example, the major labels had their own settlement, but that left artists who weren’t on a major label without any real negotiating power to make sure they got paid. There, the ability to bring those cases on a class-wide basis is even more important, and in the Spotify case, we were able to do some calculations that showed we had done better for our class members than the major labels did. It shows the quintessential value in being able to bring class-action cases.

We also have a putative class case against higher education publisher Cengage which has sought to move college coursebooks and other materials into online platforms from physical textbooks. But the company has done that without paying the contractual royalties it originally negotiated with authors – mostly professors. It’s an example of trying to force these technological changes without having a plan for addressing existing legal obligations.

LD: You’re practicing at an amazing time of change and turbulence in the intersection of technology and the law.

KS: It’s an area where you see the struggle and the importance of people having a remedy for being wronged, then you help to make the law better by having these fact-intensive cases where courts see this is how an issue is playing out. This is how copyright law is playing out when you now have digital streaming services.

You can show that it’s not quite what Congress maybe intended when they wrote a law that applied to broadcasters and selling a CD at a store. They didn’t

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

281

500

500 282

Joseph Shenker

Daniel Small

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Leopold Sher

Abby Cohen Smutny

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gina Shishima

Thomas Sobol

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Anne Sidrys

David Sochia

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Gerald Silk

Sonia Sotomayor

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

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

Rachel Skaistis

Grace Speights

CRAVATH NEW YORK

MORGAN LEWIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Steven Sklaver

Lande Alexandra Spottswood

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

Georgiana Slade

Kalpana Srinivasan

MILBANK NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Daniel Slifkin

Eiko Stange

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

think that CD would then be played for millions of people on a streaming service where somebody collects a lot of revenue for it and pays nothing to the original artist. Or when authors signed contracts to get royalties for their books sold – they did not expect to get a fraction of those royalties just because their works are now bundled with other offerings online.

Law is not an abstraction, so how do you make sure the law is addressing what’s happening in the real world? I think it’s important for the courts to see what is playing out factually in these markets and these businesses because that’s what gives legs to whatever legal decision they are going to make.

LD: You’re a real voice of now. There are these forces that have out-sized influence trying to keep things as they were. It’s so critical to have lawyers making it coherent how things have evolved and making sure the law recognizes that.

KS: And to give context. People know, for example, “Hey, I’m in California. If I have employees, I can’t really write up some noncompete agreement that keeps them from going to work for a rival, because that’s not the way the law is here.” So what else can they do to make sure that somebody is not going to take their stuff and run off and use it in another business?

It’s an area where the specific facts of a case can help give depth to the law: Maybe somebody goes to a competitor, and you can’t go after them for violating a noncompete agreement. But if they took 10 USB drives with them filled with their prior employer’s data – which is again a very common scenario we see now in California – how do you handle that? There’s an interplay between what the law permits and what’s really happening. You can be part of determining how that changes and develops. There’s a lot going on. Seeing it play out in different areas has been great, both on the entertainment, music, copyright side, and then on a more traditional patent-protection side. There haven’t been too many dull moments.

LD: I was going to ask if you ever sleep, but I think I know the answer.

KS: I do sleep. I would say last year and now with Covid I’ve tried to go back to some things that I like to do which, frankly, more than anything, is just to keep my brain fresh.

LD: Such as?

KS: I like to dance, modern dance. I’ve been going to a dance studio over the past year or so. Some of the dancing is really challenging and requires you

to have mental focus. It’s so easy to try to “do something” or have an activity, but find that the activity is not compelling enough to force you to shut off the other things. I like to have an activity where there’s a little bit of challenge – and a lot of fun, too. Some of the classes that I go to, you have to learn specific choreography. If you don’t pay attention, you will be behind. I have kept up with that while sheltering at home because most of my instructors are still teaching on Instagram or Zoom or other online platforms.

LD: That’s so fun. We need full-contact pastimes.

KS: Sometimes just stepping away from what you’re doing and immersing yourself in something else that you enjoy, you come back with better ideas, clearer ideas, maybe different ways to approach a problem that you have. I think the challenge has been finding a good activity that forces me to create that distance, but I certainly have been working on that.

I know there are people who like to meditate. I can do that once in a while, but perhaps I lack the discipline.

My mind will be in a thousand places, and sometimes I don’t come out feeling like, “Oh, my brain is really fresh and clear.” It’s like, no, I’ve been thinking about what I have to do this weekend or whether I responded to that email. Especially now. I’m fortunate to have so many different kinds of cases, so many interesting, very busy, active cases, but of course, that means lots of calls, emails, different fire drills happening at any given moment. I think to keep your sense of calm so that those things keep moving forward, no matter how many of them there are, you do need to have a little space where you can get away mentally.

I’ve done a lot of work on trying to retool how I manage doing that. I’m thinking only about the choreography for that hour, which trains my mind to focus really intensely for a period of time on one thing and then move onto something else. That was really helpful especially in getting ready for the HouseCanary appeal, which was a deep dive into a large record, to step away and come back to the prep with new ideas and ways to approach the argument.

Sharpening that skill remains very much needed during this time when we are working and sheltering at home. The work can expand to fill the days and the personal and familial demands – physical and emotional – are more complicated than ever. Taking a break for a virtual dance class or a workout feels like both a luxury and a necessity to keep focused on the work and build some fortitude to handle whatever else might happen in a day.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

283

Jay Eisenhofer GRANT & EISENHOFER (NEW YORK)

500

JAY EISENHOFER CONSIDER A LAWYER ACCOMPLISHED IF HE’S

made a pronounced mark in one corner of the law through his professional life. A small number have even created new fields of practice that hadn’t existed previously.

And then there’s Jay Eisenhofer, co-founder and managing director of leading plaintiffs’ firm Grant & Eisenhofer. Over a 35-year career he has been a pioneer in three areas of modern business litigation – institutional investor securities class actions; shareholder appraisal disputes over mergers and acquisitions; and international investor actions. All three are now well-established – and highly competitive – engines of the plaintiffs’ bar, and Eisenhofer has played an influential role in all three.

Along the way, the firm Eisenhofer founded with former partner Stuart Grant has become one of the country’s premier plaintiffs’ firms, representing investors prosecuting cases alleging corporate fraud, self-dealing, accounting fraud and other financial and boardroom misconduct.

For most of G&E’s 23-year history, Eisenhofer has focused on fighting for institutional investors, particularly large U.S. pension funds. Amalgamated Bank, the New York City Retirement Funds, CALPERS and CALSTRS, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Louisiana State Employees Retirement System and other public and union pension funds have all taken lead plaintiff roles in G&E actions.

“Jay was an early leader and advocate for corporate governance reform in the shareholder litigation arena,” says Charles Elson, who teaches law and finance at the University of Delaware and is regarded as a dean of corporate governance law.

A number of Eiesenhofer’s early cases are considered seminal for establishing new law favorable to investors. He was lead attorney in AFSME v. AIG, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals required public companies to disclose in their proxy materials the names of shareholder-nominated director candidates alongside those put forward by the company, reversing years of “no-action” letters by the SEC. He represented investors in Carmody v. Toll Brothers, the first time the Delaware Court of Chancery held that poison pill plans with unlimited duration provisions violated Delaware corporate law – the court found

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY that such “dead-hand” pills were, in fact, coercive to stockholders.

And in one of the first securities cases filed following passage of the landmark Public Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, G&E was lead counsel in Gluck v. Cellstar. It was the first time an institutional investor was appointed lead plaintiff in a securities class action and set the table for a generation of securities litigators to follow. Besides giving institutional investors new clout in pursuing securities claims, Cellstar resulted in financial recoveries far above historical averages.

Many of today’s swashbuckling investor activists were influenced by Eisenhofer’s 2005 treatise, “Shareholder Activism Handbook,” co-authored with G&E director Michael Barry. The book was one of the first full-scale treatments of the then-emerging shareholder-management dynamic and laid the groundwork for many activist campaigns and legal contests since its first edition.

Longtime shareholder advocate Nell Minow, vice chair of shareholder engagement consultancy Value Edge Advisors, recalls one of her early SOS calls to Eisenhofer heading into a showdown with a recalcitrant board. “I was working at an activist fund at the time and our relationship with the CEO and board of one of our portfolio companies was strained at best, and the annual meeting, to be held at Wilmington’s storied Hotel Dupont, was coming up,” Minow recounts. “I’d handled a lot of annual meetings alone but this time I needed back-up and asked Jay to come with me. It was a good thing because at exactly the right moment he stood up and told the CEO that the board had to let me ask my questions.

I felt like my knight in shining armor had come to my defense. Jay knows the law, has excellent judgment, and is fearless on behalf of his clients.”

In the past two decades, G&E has recovered more than $27B for clients, in headline lawsuits against Pfizer, DaimlerChrysler, Goldman Sachs, UnitedHealthcare, Marsh & McLennan, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tyco, Global Crossing, PwC, Fortis and other mega companies and financial institutions. The firm is among the most respected and feared among shareholder counsel – quite an accomplishment for two former Skadden associates who switched sides.

Grant, a longtime Lawdragon 500 member, retired

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

285

500

500 286

Ann Beth Stebbins

Arun Subramanian

SKADDEN NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Brian Stekloff

Diane Sullivan

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

WEIL PRINCETON, N.J.

Cate Stetson

Tara Sutton

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Bryan Stevenson

Bonny Sweeney

EQUAL JUSTICE MONTGOMERY, ALA.

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

Theodore Stevenson

Quyen Ta

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

KING & SPALDING SAN FRANCISCO

Kosta Stojilkovic

Jean Tanaka

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES

Jocelyn Strauber

Germaine Tanner

SKADDEN NEW YORK

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

Leo Strine

John C. Taylor

WACHTELL NEW YORK

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

Lary Stromfeld

Tina Tchen

CADWALADER NEW YORK

TIME’S UP WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

A NUMBER OF EISENHOFER’S EARLY CASES ARE CONSIDERED SEMINAL FOR ESTABLISHING NEW LAW FAVORABLE TO INVESTORS. last year, and Eisenhofer is focused on expanding the firm’s platform for the next generation.

Kurt Schacht, managing director of Standards and Financial Market Integrity at the CFA Institute, recalls in the early 1990s when he was general counsel for the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, one of the country’s largest public pension funds. “We couldn’t find a law firm that would represent investor interests in Wilmington,” he recalls. “Firm after firm declined representation of shareholder interests to protect their corporate client base, until Jay Eisenhofer agreed to represent us.” Schacht notes that in case after case, securities fraud recoveries went up as Eisenhofer focused on representing the interests of the largest investors. “Jay was a trailblazer in shareholder litigation and represented us as one of the very first lead plaintiffs under PSLRA. He’s done so much to improve investor protection and corporate accountability.”

Lawdragon: How would you characterize the current state of shareholder litigation? Some observers think the days of the big investor class actions are behind us.

Jay Eisenhofer: It’s funny – people have been forecasting the end of shareholder litigation for as long as I’ve been handling these cases. A lot of commentators actually claimed the PSLRA would kill it 25 years ago. Then, the meltdown in the early 2000s was said to be the death knell, especially after the onset of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which was expressly created as a guardrail for investor protection over accounting fraud in the wake of Enron. Ditto after the financial crisis and passage of Dodd Frank a decade ago. And yet, here we are, with new waves of cases emerging because this drug company misled investors about its pipeline of new treatment, or that company fabricated the performance of its autonomous vehicle technology.

I happen to believe that most corporate officers and directors are honest and that most companies are law abiding. But there are always some trying to cut corners or behave unethically. Until you repeal the laws of human nature, there’s going to be a need to protect the interests of shareholders and a group of lawyers willing to pursue claims on their behalf, just as there’s a need to protect interests of consumers.

LD: I know you’ve led many investor actions in nonU.S. courts, especially in Europe. Can you talk about some of your securities work abroad?

JE: We’ve represented some of the world’s largest public employee retirement funds outside the U.S. – including those in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France and elsewhere – in establishing a new mechanism for class-like investor recovery through European courts and tribunals.

In one of our earliest cases, we brought together more than 175 institutional investors across Europe to settle claims stemming from Royal Dutch Shell’s overstatement of proven oil and gas reserves, which resulted in a $450M settlement through a class recovery vehicle in the Netherlands that had not previously been used in a securities lawsuit. Our settlements in cases against Fortis ($1.5B) and Royal Bank of Scotland ($1B) are among the largest recoveries on record in Europe. We’re currently co-counsel in a shareholder fraud suit against Vivendi in the Commercial Court of Paris on behalf of a coalition of some 90 institutional investors from Europe, Asia and the U.S. The case, which alleges that Vivendi and prior leadership failed to disclose the company’s financial woes following its earlier tie-up with Seagram and Canal Plus, is set to go to trial in December.

In another interesting non-U.S. case, we represent a large group of Greek bank depositors collectively suing the Republic of Cyprus for massive losses stemming from Europe’s financial crisis.

Major credit to our success outside the U.S. goes to the co-heads of our international practice – Olav Haazen and Guus Warringa, who are true all-stars in handling cross-border litigation. Olav, who teaches litigation law in the Netherlands, has played a key part in our biggest global cases, including marshalling some 300 institutional investors worldwide in advancing our case against Volkswagen in German courts over its diesel emission cheating scandal. He also represented foreign investors in pursuing claims against feeder funds and other defendants tied to the Madoff Ponzi fraud. Before he joined us in 2015, Guus was general counsel for APG N.V. in Amsterdam, which manages assets for one of the world’s

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

287

500 largest public pension funds. Guus is renowned in the institutional investor community and was named one of the most influential figures in European capital markets by Financial News.

LD: G&E has recently planted its flag in the emerging movement of Environmental, Sustainable, and Governance investing. Can you tell us more about that effort?

JE: In 2018 we launched an ESG Institute, created as both a thought leadership and advocacy arm to help investors through the legal thicket of sustainable investments, a movement that has gained traction globally around a host of issues impacting corporate citizenship. We’ve been looking at everything from human rights and fossil fuel emissions to social justice.

To cite one example, the Institute petitioned the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block imports of palm oil by Malaysian producers accused of deploying forced and child labor. One targeted producer, owned by the Malaysian government, was alleged to trap workers on remote palm oil plantations under slave-like conditions.

LD: It’s exciting to watch how you’ve been expanding the firm’s platform to support a host of new litigation practices with additional terrific lawyers. Can you tell us about a few of them?

JE: Championing investors will always be core to G&E, but we’ve made a concerted effort in recent years to broaden our practice arsenal and position ourselves for future growth beyond securities litigation.

That includes the addition of experienced tort litigator Elizabeth Graham to lead our portfolio of complex pharmaceutical and medical device litigation – Beth was an instrumental part of the team securing a $1.6B settlement from Bayer this past August stemming from claims over the company’s troubled Essure birth control implant.

Beth and several G&E colleagues have also built an important new women’s advocacy platform, highlighted this past year with the filing of several high-profile sexual assault and harassment lawsuits, including cases against the country’s largest chain of wellness massage centers. On another front, director Lisa Weinstein was brought on to build a medical malpractice capability, focused on catastrophic birth injury litigation.

LD: Any other areas?

JE: We now have a robust environmental and toxic tort practice. Director Kyle McGee is representing state Attorneys Generals in actions against Monsanto over the production and sale of toxic PCBs, blamed for contaminating waterways and other natural re-

288

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

sources across the country. Kyle is also directing environmental cases against 3M, Dupont, Chemours and other manufacturers of hazardous PFAS chemicals, which have tainted groundwater resources. And in 2019, Beth Graham played a lead role in obtaining $143M in payments to residents and businesses of several Massachusetts towns harmed by a series of gas-ignited fires and explosions caused by Columbia Gas the year before.

G&E has also taken on a number of antitrust and consumer class actions, and added directors specializing in bankruptcy and intellectual property, areas we had not historically litigated.

I’m especially energized by the civil rights practice we launched in 2019 that has brought several highprofile cases, including one on behalf of a former Death Row inmate in Florida exonerated for a brutal double murder. Leading that group are directors Kimberly Evans and Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann.

Kim is handling cases involving wrongful incarceration, discrimination, sexual assault and other forms of harassment. Diandra, better known as Fu, heads our newest office in Birmingham, Ala., and frequently represents public entities in a range of non-investor litigation, including data breach matters. In one heartbreaking case, Fu currently represents the family of a 9-year-old Alabama girl whose teachers and school administrators failed to stop serial bullying by her classmates, which tragically led to her suicide.

LD: Has the firm entered the fray of Covid-related litigation?

JE: We have indeed, especially on behalf of small businesses wracked by economic losses directly tied to the coronavirus pandemic. In 2020 we have brought a series of lawsuits against major insurance carriers over Covid-related claims denials. The firm’s policyholder clients include fitness centers, restaurants, wine bars and other customer-facing enterprises, who contend that insurers illegally denied them coverage for business interruption losses after they followed state instructions regarding lockdowns and restricted operations.

LD: And what about any personal interests?

JE: As our firm matures healthily towards a second generation, I had the opportunity to collaborate with my 10-year-old son Mark this past year on an adventure novel called “Black Shadow.” It’s a super-charged time-travel story that invites readers to “imagine flying from solar system to solar system pirating stolen goods from soldiers, thieves, and police.”

500

Anita Wallace Thomas

Max Tribble

NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Clarence Thomas

Lisa Tsai

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

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

John Thomas

Jeroen van Kwawegen

HICKS THOMAS HOUSTON

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Vivian Lee Thoreen

Kathi Vidal

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LOS ANGELES

WINSTON & STRAWN MENLO PARK

Sally Thurston

Jim Walden

SKADDEN NEW YORK

WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK

Robert Tobey

Brent Walker

JOHNSTON TOBEY BARUCH DALLAS

ALDOUS / WALKER DALLAS

Steven Toll

Alexandra Walsh

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

ATTORNEY AT LAW WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mary Touchstone

Robert Walters

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Robert Townsend

Johnny Ward

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WARD SMITH & HILL LONGVIEW, TEXAS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

289

John Thomas HICKS THOMAS (HOUSTON)

500

JOHN THOMAS YOU KNOW ANY STORY THAT INVOLVES A

Pontiac and the Cadillac Bar is going to be a good one. And here’s the thing about Hicks Thomas’ John Thomas. His ascent to the elite ranks of Texas trial lawyers from a Midwest childhood combines a lot of grit, a dose of luck and a sense of self that goes more than a little way to explaining his remarkable success representing plaintiffs and defendants in cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and often life and death.

You wouldn’t know it from talking to him, though.

His standout firm is one of Texas’ best, built over 30 years to offer top-level advocacy in a wide range of cases, while providing a training ground and home to a next generation of top trial lawyers. A native of Pontiac, Mich., Thomas grew up in the shadow of the Pontiac motor foundry, where many of his family worked. While wrestling in Division 1 at Western Michigan University, he grew interested in the law as a potential career following the guidance of a resident advisor majoring in pre-law. As a law student at the University of Michigan, he dreamt of becoming a Manhattan attorney. A tax rotation at a Wall Street law firm disabused him of that notion.

In a corporate law rotation, he joined a team working on large deals, but he and the other young lawyers were largely relegated to marking up documents or performing due diligence. It was, he says, “the second level of awful.” He found his home in litigation, however.

He lit up when he attended his first deposition – watching the interaction between attorney and witness. A piece of advice from a fellow athlete – a supervising partner who had played football – proved pivotal.

“He said to me, ‘Litigation and trial work is the closest you will come to a physical competition like a football game or a wrestling match. It’s the closest you will come,’” Thomas explains. “That was energizing.”

Lawdragon: Fascinating advice. And it’s true, right?

John Thomas: For sure. The first time that I really felt that rush of adrenaline was when I was an associate in the middle of a trial with Taylor Hicks. The general counsel was in the courtroom watching, and there was an expert witness on the stand. Mr. Hicks looked at me and said, “Do you want to take him?” I looked at him and said, “What?” But I knew the material very well. He slid me over his outline, I got up and I did it, and it was exuberating.

PHOTO BY: TOM CALLINS

BY KATRINA DEWEY It was my first courtroom examination of an expert. It was a thrill, a rush. At that point, I was hooked.

LD: How did you first meet Taylor Hicks?

JT: I was in New York interviewing at all these Wall Street firms and planning to split my summer between New York and Houston because I had some friends after college who came to Houston. One of my buddies from high school was here teaching and coaching at St. Thomas High School, and we had a fraternity of high school wrestling captains where we all stayed. I thought, “I’ve never seen a lot of the country. I’m just going to go down to Houston.”

I took a flight from LaGuardia after an interview, and an associate picked me up at the airport in Houston, and we drove to the Cadillac Bar. Standing at the bar, in cowboy boots and no jacket on, tie loosened and sleeves rolled up, with a longneck beer, was Taylor Hicks. He said, “John, welcome to Houston.” He stuck out his hand. That was my welcome to Houston.

Mr. Hicks got me introduced to Edith Jones, who had also worked at Andrews Kurth [where he was a partner]. She had just been confirmed as the newest 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge during my summer clerkship. I got an interview with her, and she hired me as part of her first set of clerks out of law school.

That summer, I drove the Pontiac car that I got on family discount - which I bought on graduation from law school - to Houston, and I went to work for Edith Jones.

LD: What an amazing introduction to Houston! What was it like clerking with her when she was starting out?

JT: I have to tell you, first of all, I am so fond of her. She was a wonderful mentor. What a great way to start your real legal career. I really was able to hone my writing skills working for her that year. I also learned to be careful what you say in and around a courthouse or courtroom, which is kind of a funny story. We were in this beautiful courtroom in the old New Orleans 5th Circuit courthouse, and a lawyer got up to start his argument and Judge Jones just pounced with a question. The gallery was full of lawyers, and one of them leaned over and said, “That’s Edith Jones. That’s the barracuda I was telling you about.” Right in front of one of her clerks! She roared laughing when I told her about it. She got a huge kick out of that. She wasn’t offended at all; she just thought it was really funny.

LD: Then you joined Andrews Kurth?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

291

500

500 JT: Yes. After I clerked, I went to Andrews Kurth. I decided I didn’t want to go back to Wall Street. New York felt like you were just a number. LA was a little too spread out. But I felt right at home in Texas. I had grown up in the Midwest; I’m a Midwestern guy, and it just felt very comfortable here. I had felt out of place in Manhattan. I’m not an East Coast guy, and that just wasn’t my thing. I just ended up here and have had, I think, a fun, interesting career since starting.

LD: Tell me about some of your early trials and cases.

JT: Early on, we were hired at Andrews Kurth to try a companion case to a big arbitration in which the client had already won a $100 million arbitration award.

I tried it with Taylor Hicks, and we put enough concern in the case that after the evidence was closed - and for closing arguments - the CEO and some senior executives for this very big company showed up in the courtroom to watch. I was an associate and I did half the closing with Mr. Hicks, and I was really irritated that the guys out there hadn’t shown up during the trial. Afterward, a really famous lawyer in Texas, Tom Alexander, came up to me. He had this real crusty old Texas lawyer voice. He said, “John, that was a darn good jury speech you gave. Darn good jury speech. Good job.”

at the end of the day you can’t be anybody else but yourself. Jurors can see right through an act. Then the second thing is that you’d better be honest and not try to pull the wool over somebody’s eyes, because they’ll hurt you. You can’t just adopt what other lawyers are doing if it doesn’t feel right in your gut.

Your gut’s going to tell you a lot. Follow your instincts.

LD: Does your wrestling experience inform your courtroom approach?

JT: Well, I can’t stand sitting still in a courtroom. You are wrestling with a witness. Sometimes you get ones that are going to say whatever they want, regardless of what the evidence is or where they think you’re going with things. You just have to stay loose and not get flustered and communicate, regardless of what the witness is doing.

LD: When did you start your firm, and why did you?

JT: We started in 1997, so we’re entering our third decade. One of the reasons for starting was to be entrepreneurial, not only in the financial sense, with contingency fees, but with career satisfaction and handling a diversity of cases as well. I don’t think I could have sued some of the companies we have, on behalf of some of the plaintiffs we have, at a large firm.

It was a real ego boost to a young lawyer. Another case was in south Texas, representing Maria Garcia and her family. She had been an elementary school secretary for about 50 years, and her husband was a used-car salesman at the local Ford dealership, so they knew everybody in town. She was terminally ill with liver failure, and just before the trial, the defendants hired a legislator to be on the trial team. What they were trying to do was scrap the trial date, because you can’t force a sitting-in-session legislator to trial.

We sued Hilton Hotels and the hotel management company on behalf of the Houston family of a man electrocuted in the swimming pool at a Hilton hotel, for instance. Big firms aren’t going to be doing those kinds of things. One thing about this practice is that I’ve done things from representing oil producers, mid-stream pipelines, to representing Mattress Firm, one of the biggest retailers in the country. Running a firm is, of course, a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility, but I don’t think I’d have it any other way.

We challenged their motion for continuance and put on evidence from the doctors and the family in a hearing. It was really emotional, and a lot of the people from the community were watching the case.

At the end of the hearing, the judge said he would take it under advisement; the lawyers for the other side said, “Judge, we’re set for trial next week. What do we do?” He said, “I suggest that, depending upon my ruling, you be prepared to pick a jury next week.”

At the end of the day, they really didn’t want that case to go to trial. They settled over the weekend.

LD: It must be a tremendous experience.

LD: Tell me about some your keys to success in court.

JT: At the end of the day, you have to be yourself. You can’t be somebody that you’re not. You can watch people and try and see what they do that you like, but

292

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

JT: There are two things about it. First, we’ve got this wealth of trial experience across the board here, with lawyers that we really like and enjoy being with.

Secondarily, there’s an opportunity for mentorship to the next generation of lawyers. You read a lot about the dying art of the jury trial, how they’ve become fewer and farther between, and the question of who’s going to step up and provide new experience for younger lawyers. I think it’s important to give them opportunities, give them the chance to be active and engaged. Let them get their show. We really have this great group here. You appreciate it even more during Covid, when you spend so much time with the colleagues you work with. They’re like your second family.

500

Mark Wawro

Shawn Williams

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

Stephen Weiss

Steven Williams

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Tony West

Donna Wilson

UBER SAN FRANCISCO

MANATT LOS ANGELES

Lexie White

Jamie Wine

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

LATHAM NEW YORK

Conlee Whiteley

R. Brent Wisner

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

BAUM HEDLUND LOS ANGELES

Douglas Wigdor

Daniel Wolf

WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Beth Wilkinson

Marc Wolinsky

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Lashawn Williams

Michael Wolitzer

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Milton Williams

Michael Woronoff

WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK

KIRKLAND LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

293

500

500 Debra Wyman

Jonathan Youngwood

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Debra Wong Yang

Taurie Zeitzer

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Bruce Yannett

Damien Zoubek

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Paul Zumbro CRAVATH NEW YORK

2020

294

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 22 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Paul Geller ROBBINS GELLER (BOCA RATON, FLA.)

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.