Lawdragon: The Plaintiff Issue by Lawdragon

THE

PLAINTIFF ISSUE

Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman

POMERANTZ CONGRATULATES OUR LAWDRAGONS

Partner Murielle Steven Walsh

Partner Michael J. Wernke Partner Gustavo F. Bruckner Partner and Head of Client Services Jennifer Pafiti

Partner Matthew L. Tuccillo Partner Emma Gilmore

PROTECTING INVESTORS IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD Pomerantz LLP is the oldest law firm in the world dedicated to championing investor rights, and one of the most respected. A global leader in securities class actions and portfolio monitoring, Pomerantz monitors assets of well over $5 trillion on behalf of some of the most influential institutional investors worldwide. From achieving a record-breaking $3 billion recovery for defrauded investors in recent litigation against Brazilian oil giant, Petrobras, to securing ground-breaking decisions that have shaped the law to the benefit of shareholders, our attorneys are “some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the world.”* * Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, at Petrobras preliminary approval hearing

NEW YORK • CHICAGO • LOS ANGELES • PARIS www.pomerantzlaw.com

We are proud to congratulate eight of our partners — William T. “Bill” Reid, IV, P. Jason Collins, Lisa S. Tsai, Eric D. Madden, Rachel S. Fleishman, Joshua J. Bruckerhoff, Nathaniel J. Palmer, and Craig A. Boneau — on being named to the 2019 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial 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

Number One Seth Ard

Barry Barnett

Matthew Berry

Vineet Bhatia

Amanda Bonn

Parker Folse

Joseph Grinstein

Drew Hansen

Erica Harris

Geoffrey Harrison

Brian Melton

Stephen Morrissey

Trey Peacock

Shawn Rabin

Shawn Raymond

Kalpana Srinivsan

Arun Subramanian

Harry Susman

Stephen Susman

Max Tribble

HOUSTON | LOS ANGELES | SEATTLE | NEW YORK susmangodfrey.com

At Susman Godfrey, we like to win. So we’re delighted to have more attorneys on this list than any other firm. We’re proud of all 39 lawyers honored here — MORE THAN HALF OUR PARTNERSHIP.

Davida Brook

Jacob Buchdahl

Ophelia Camina

Bill Carmody

Johnny Carter

Rick Hess

Kathryn Hoek

Chanler Langham

Neal Manne

Eric Mayer

Robert Rivera Jr.

Katie Sammons

Marc Seltzer

Steven Shepard

Steven Sklaver

Genevieve Wallace

Mark Wawro

Lexie White

Randy Wilson

{ CONTENTS } 16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 19 LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING PLAINTIFF FINANCIAL LAWYERS

Our curated look at the best of the U.S. plaintiff bar who specialize in representing individual investors and shareholders, as well as businesses and other organizations harmed by corporate misconduct or other failures. The 500 lawyers selected bring their cases as individual matters as well as in class actions that are increasingly going global.

20 FIRM FEATURE: POMERANTZ LLP A New Day: A record victory, young leadership and a docket of

timely causes has put Pomerantz at the forefront of the securities litigation practice. Also featuring Lawyer Limelights with:

28 32 38 42 46 50 56 60 66 70 74 80 84 88 92 98

Jeremy Lieberman of Pomerantz

Kalpana Srinivasan of Susman Godfrey Craig Boneau of Reid Collins Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel Jennifer Pafiti of Pomerantz Aelish Baig of Robbins Geller Emma Gilmore of Pomerantz Nate Palmer of Reid Collins Jeroen van Kwawegen of Bernstein Litowitz Michael Wernke of Pomerantz Jason Sultzer of Sultzer Law Gustavo Bruckner of Pomerantz Lexie White of Susman Godfrey Murielle Walsh of Pomerantz Matt Tuccillo of Pomerantz Josh Bruckerhoff of Reid Collins

ON THE COVER

66 4

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Back cover, starting left: Ray Boucher, Genie Harrison, Robert Clifford, Craig Boneau, Stuart Grossman. Front cover: Kalpana Srinivasan, Tom Moore, Judy Livingston, Larry Rogers and Jeremy Lieberman. Photo of Times Square by Laura Barisonzi.

{ CONTENTS }

105 LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING PLAINTIFF CONSUMER LAWYERS

These champions are the best of the U.S. trial bar who specialize in representing individuals who have suffered injuries from accidents, pharmaceuticals, civil rights abuse and other torts. The 500 lawyers selected bring their cases as individual matters as well as in class actions that are increasingly going global.

106 116

106 FIRM FEATURE: LESSER LESSER LANDY & SMITH In Good Conscience: The tireless team at this Florida-based firm has earned hundreds of millions of dollars for injured plaintiffs and their families. Also featuring Lawyer Limelights with:

116 Larry Rogers Jr. of Power Rogers 124 Bob Clifford of Clifford Law Offices 134 Marion Munley of Munley Law 138 Ray Boucher of Boucher 146 Stuart Grossman of Grossman Roth 154 Judy Livingston and Tom Moore of Kramer Livingston 158 Tim Cavanagh of Cavanagh Law Firm 164 Thomas Giuffra of Rheingold Giuffra 172 Kenneth Lumb of Corboy & Demetrio 176 Stephen Garcia of Garcia & Artigliere 182 Brent Goudarzi of Goudarzi & Young 186 Jason Itkin of Arnold & Itkin

196

195 LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING PLAINTIFF EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

These outstanding lawyers are among the legal frontline hoping to find lifeblood for so many hurting individuals – from those gig economy and restaurant workers with few protections, to retail, airline and other stressed institutions whose futures are in doubt.

196 FIRM FEATURE: GENIE HARRISON LAW FIRM Grab ‘Em By the Verdict: Genie Harrison once dreamt of prosecuting war criminals. She found her calling taking on sexual harassment. Also featuring Lawyer Limelights with:

204 Samuel Cordes of Rothman Gordon 212 Anita Hill of Cohen Milstein 228 Tammy Marzigliano of Outten & Golden 236 David Wachtel of Trister Ross

212 6

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

XXX

Congratulations Stuart Z. Grossman for being recognized by

Lawdragon 500 as a Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyer

Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen is a team of awardwinning trial attorneys focusing on multiple areas of law, including medical malpractice, personal injury and complex litigation.

Issue 21 LAWDRAGON INC. PUBLISHER/CHIEF

305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013

EXECUTIVE OFFICER K atrina D ewey katrina @ lawdragon . com

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE

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 , R obert B liss , J ay B renner , A my C antrell , L aura C rosta , J ay G unning / O wl B ridge M edia , M ichelle N olan , K en R ichardson , J osh R itchie , F elix S anchez , J ulie S oefer P rinted in C anada

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

FOR US THERE ARE NO SURPRISES With almost 300 years of combined legal experience, our personal injury lawyers have seen the defense playbook. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY AND SCHOENBERGER congratulates shareholders MICHAEL A. KELLY, RICHARD H. SCHOENBERGER and DORIS CHENG for their selection to The Lawdragon 500. Each of these stalwarts has helped deliver justice to those in need with integrity, skill and unflagging determination. Their successes in the past year have come before State and Federal judicial officers, juries and arbitrators. Each has elevated the reputation of the profession in the public eye. In her service as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco, Ms. Cheng stewarded both the Justice and Diversity Center and BASF, while developing and administering two highly acclaimed “Women In Trial” boot camps, training more than 100 participants in courtroom advocacy. Mr. Schoenberger’s trial skills were well displayed with a record-setting jury verdict in Central California and his volunteer teaching was on display at multiple programs sponsored by NITA for whom he serves as Hanley Advanced Trial Skills Program Director. Mr. Kelly led the fight on behalf of residents of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Butte counties who sustained injury, property loss and homelessness as a result of the negligence of Northern California’s largest utility, PG&E, which caused the devastating 2017 and 2018 wildfires. In addition, he travelled to Belfast, Northern Ireland to direct the 25th Anniversary Queens College Solicitor Advocacy Training and was a featured speaker at the American Association of Justice’s annual meeting in San Diego. It is through the efforts of these lawyers and their equally skilled colleagues that the Walkup firm is acknowledged as a “top tier” firm nationally and locally by U.S. News. Our mass tort team is involved in litigation arising from wildfires, defective consumer products, medical devices and cancercausing pesticides. Firm members have achieved recognition for their skill and achievement with election to membership and leadership in preeminent organizations including the Inner Circle of Advocates, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers and The Summit Council. Walkup attorneys are active in the community working with the homeless and disadvantaged and they teach, lecture and mentor other lawyers locally and across the country. We salute our colleagues selected for membership this year.

6 5 0 C A L I F O R N I A S T R E E T, S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 8 P H : 4 1 5 . 8 8 9 . 2 9 1 9 • FA X : 4 1 5 . 3 9 1 . 6 9 6 5 W W W.W A L K U P L A W O F F I C E . C O M

“All Star Litigation Shop.” —LAW360

NEW YORK 430 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 T: 212.607.8160

WASHINGTON, D.C. 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 T: 202.556.2000

www.mololamken.com

CHICAGO 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 T: 312.450.6700

{

}

A NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR

E HOPE YOU’RE SAFE, WELL, AND STRONG WITH HOPE – WHEREVER AND HOWEVER YOU’RE READING THIS, OUR INAUGURAL PLAINTIFF ISSUE. WE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE FIREWORKS. OR AT LEAST A GOOD OLD-FASHIONED CELEBRATION OF OUR NEW MAGAZINE DEDICATED TO THE ART OF THE PLAINTIFF LAWYER, WHETHER EMPLOYMENT, CONSUMER OR FINANCIAL. WE RECOGNIZE 1,500 OF THOSE HEROIC WARRIORS HERE, WITH FEATURES ON NEARLY THREE DOZEN OF THEM – FROM LOS ANGELES’ GENIE HARRISON, TO WEST PALM BEACH’S LESSER, LESSER, LANDY & SMITH AND NEW YORK’S POMERANTZ. SIGN O’ THE TIMES. Instead of gathering at an Irish pub in Midtown or a surf bar in Venice to toast what we’re sure will become the signature setting for trends and talent in the U.S. plaintiff bar, we’re raising a glass to each of you and to the audacity of this moment. The pandemic has taken its toll, and it is not done. Like everyone, each of the Lawdragon team has loved ones who have become ill. Blessedly, all have recovered. Physically. Emotionally, financially, the carnage has just started. As we’ve looked out our windows and taken our sometimes daily dose of exercise, it’s dawned on us there is no better moment to honor these lawyers – Ray Boucher, Stuart Grossman, Judy Livingston and Tom Moore, Kalpana Srinivasan, Larry Rogers Jr., Jeremy Lieberman, Bob Clifford, and Craig Boneau. With Harrison, those lawyers featured on our cover represent the remarkable courage to not only take on the suffering of another, but to do so at their own risk. If they win, they can achieve significant rewards for their clients and themselves. When they fail, it is crushing. They are on the precipice every day for people who were already suffering and in harm’s way. To a person, they are resilient, have faith, belief in justice and in a better day. They use a lifetime of skills and knowledge to make a courtroom their own. They manage the impossible: to keep an open heart for each and every new client, despite the heartbreak of hundreds or thousands who have come before. They stand up and fight, choosing the difficult path each and every time. Because they know it is the one that leads where they must go. As we all must, with extraordinary urgency right now. Forget the fireworks in the sky. Believe in your own ability to fight as these amazing plaintiffs’ lawyers do. Believe we can get to a better day, the other side, together. And if you need inspiration, check out these 1,500 role models.

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

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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

C HRISTOPHER A. S EEGER

A founding partner of Seeger Weiss LLP, Christopher Seeger is broadly recognized as one of the nation’s most versatile and accomplished plaintiffs’ attorneys, known for his leadership role in some of the most innovative and groundbreaking multidistrict litigations of the last two decades. These include the NFL Concussion Litigation, where he served as lead counsel and chief negotiator in obtaining an uncapped settlement valued at more than $1 billion on behalf of thousands of retired NFL players and their families. In the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, a multidistrict litigation revolving around a paramount medical, social, and legal crisis of our time, Mr. Seeger serves as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a Negotiation Class of over 34,000 counties and cities. Mr. Seeger has also served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the Negotiating Committee in the nationwide Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation, resulting in a $21 billion settlement; as Chair of the Trial Committee in the Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation, resulting in a $1 billion settlement; on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Depuy Orthopaedics ASH Hip Implant Products MDL, resulting in an almost $3 billion settlement; and as the Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Settlement Negotiation Committee in the Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, resulting in a $1.51 billion settlement that resolved multi-jurisdictional litigation. He also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability MDL and Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the nationwide Intel CPU Litigation. With offices in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Seeger Weiss LLP is one of the preeminent plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation, representing clients in pharmaceutical injury, product liability, consumer fraud, environmental contamination, and whistleblower cases, among many others. The firm is known for leading some of the most complex and high-profile multidistrict mass tort and class action litigations in the United States, securing landmark settlements and verdicts. According to Chambers USA 2019, “Christopher Seeger is an expert advocate for plaintiffs in large-scale product liability disputes, including those involving manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies. Sources note that ‘he has established himself as one of the lead go-to lawyers in the largest and highest profile plaintiffs’ cases,’ resulting in his reputation as a lawyer ‘companies don’t want to be across from.’” READ MORE: WWW.SEEGERWEISS.COM

SEEGERWEISS LLP

55 CHALLENGER ROAD, RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 888.584.0411 212.584.0700 W W W. S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M I N F O @ S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M

D R U G A N D T O X I C I N J U R Y P E R S O N A L I N J U R Y C L A S S A C T I O N S W H I S T L E B L O W E R L I T I G AT I O N C O M M E R C I A L D I S P U T E S

500

We are honored to recognize the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers who specialize in representing individual investors and shareholders, as well as businesses and other organizations harmed by corporate misconduct, fraud, or other failures. The 500 lawyers selected â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the additional Hall of Fame members noted by asterisk â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bring their cases as individual matters as well as in class actions including qui tam, antitrust, and other market manipulation that has increasingly gone global. And that was before the pandemic that made the world â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and perhaps most of its litigation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one. No firm represents this sector as does Susman Godfrey, represented with 39 of its partners here. From the calculated dream of the wily Steve Susman â&#x20AC;&#x201C; who decided in the 1970s to create a law firm specializing in contingency work, often for corporations and largely for financial dealings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; has grown a dominant legal corps led by firm managing partner Neal Manne and rainmaker Bill Carmody. Which gives you almost a billion reasons why plaintiff financial litigation is the hottest practice around. Abundantly represented here are Quinn Emanuel; plaintiff securities litigation firms including Robbins Geller, Bernstein Litowitz, and Pomerantz; and antitrust litigators and whistleblower standouts galore from Cohen Milstein, Hausfeld, and Phillips & Cohen. And while the big corporate firms are hoping to catch a piece of this action, there are also relatively young firms making a big mark including Selendy & Gay, Reid Collins, and the upstart Keller Lenkner. Trust us, these are the lawyers who will come to redefine second responders alongside their consumer and employment plaintiff counterparts. Because when the world goes to hell, they know the path through it and back.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

A NEW DAY BY KATRINA DEWEY

A record victory, young leadership, and a docket of timely causes has put Pomerantz at the forefront of the securities litigation practice.

P h o t o o f J e re m y L i e b e rm an an d J e n n i f e r P a f i t i b y L au ra B ari s o n z i

PHOTO OF JER LIEBERMAN A PAFITI BY LAU BARISONZI

REMY ND JENNIFER URA

500

he times they are a-changin’ in the plaintiff securities litigation bar. From aging lions to cases that are increasingly global, there is a shift in the status quo – that for many spells opportunity. Enter Pomerantz, the oldest and one of the most respected securities law practices in the U.S., which in 2018 nabbed a historic $3B settlement with Brazilian oil giant, Petrobras, that was the largest securities class action settlement in a decade, the largest ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer of U.S. shares, and the fifth-largest class action settlement in U.S. history overall. The firm’s caseload stretches across the often thorny terrain where 21st century life and blackletter law have yet to fully connect - from the real-life damages of virtual intrusion by the augmentedreality celeb Pokémon to fallout from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and C-suite upheaval fueled by #MeToo litigation. The New York-based firm often finds itself on the side of the underdog in David-versus-Goliath confrontations with the era’s most influential corporations: energy giant BP; Match Group, the digitaldating empire cultivated by billionaire Barry Diller; and gaming standouts Niantic and Nintendo. “You’re representing the underrepresented, lending a voice to those who don’t have one, doing your utmost best to give them their day in court,” says Jeremy Lieberman, the managing partner of the 44-attorney powerhouse. “It’s thrilling to be in court and argue a motion to dismiss, or argue in the Court of Appeals where you’re up against the best defense attorneys and do well against them,” he says. “Obviously, winning is even better.” The 80-year-old firm begun by the legendary Abraham Pomerantz is no stranger to winning, from the founder’s Depression-era victory in a shareholder suit against National City Bank – whose CEO had given himself and his lieutenants loans to cover stock market losses and waived repayment – to Lieberman’s negotiation of the record-setting $3B settlement from Brazilian oil company Petrobras. “We overcame a formidable defense strategy to reach this blockbuster settlement,” says Emma Gilmore, one of the lead attorneys on the case who, during discovery, interviewed a whistleblowing executive who had been warned at gunpoint not to disclose the fraud. “Petrobras painted itself as the ‘victim’ of the fraud perpetrated by corrupt executives and politicians,” 22

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

she explains. “Petrobras’ victimhood argument was widely successful in Brazil with the Brazilian courts and the prosecutors,” but seeing the whistleblower’s bravery “inspired me even more to do my utmost to bring justice.” Lieberman, who became managing partner in 2016, is building on the firm’s tradition of expanding the scope of securities laws to benefit investors, addressing conduct that lawmakers of the past may not have considered relevant to stockholders. #MeToo cases are just one example. Pomerantz is lead counsel in a class-action securities case against Wynn Resorts, stemming from claims of sexual misconduct toward employees by casino mogul Steve Wynn, who stepped down as CEO in early 2018. The case, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, argues that the company failed to disclose the allegations against its top executive to investors, misrepresenting its treatment of sexual harassment allegations at a time when such claims had begun to roil corporations and cost A-listers from news anchor Charlie Rose to former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein their careers. When the claims against Wynn became public in a Wall Street Journal article in January 2018, the stock lost 10 percent of its value in a single day, or about $20 a share. The company had led investors to “believe it was committed to enforcing legal and ethical conduct by its employees, when in fact, its executives were covering up a pattern of abuse,” says Murielle Steven Walsh, who focuses on corporate governance and securities class action cases while serving as the firm’s administrative partner. “The actionability of a company’s statements about its Code of Conduct is a rather novel issue, although some courts recently have held that such statements can be actionable,” says Walsh, one of the firm’s 14 partners, of whom 36 percent are women. “My stance is that these issues are very material to shareholders, as evidenced by the steep stock price decline when Wynn’s bad conduct was revealed,” she adds. “The wrongdoing was particularly flagrant and egregious, and I feel that if any case should proceed on these issues, this is the one.” More broadly, the firm has positioned itself at the forefront of ferreting out sexual misconduct in the workplace, explains Gustavo Bruckner, who heads the corporate governance litigation team and holds a master’s degree in finance. “We will pursue the board members who turn a blind eye to a ‘frat boys’ culture,” Bruckner says.

Attorney Advertising

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE ATTORNEYS RECOGNIZED, INCLUDING THE 36 ROBBINS GELLER ATTORNEYS NAMED LEADING PLAINTIFF FINANCIAL LAWYERS IN AMERICA.

THE RIGHT CHOICE | www.rgrdlaw.com

500 24

Michael Absmeier

Michael Angelovich

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

NIX PATTERSON AUSTIN

Fields Alexander

Seth Ard

BECK REDDEN HOUSTON

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Laura Alexander

Gregory Asciolla

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Joseph Alioto Jr.

A. Rick Atwood Jr.

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Jeff Almeida

Aelish Marie Baig

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

X. Jay Alvarez

Melissa Baily

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

QUINN EMANUEL SAN FRANCISCO

Naumon Amjed

Frederick Baker

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

Kristen Anderson

Lisa Baldwin

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

NIX PATTERSON AUSTIN

Jeffrey Angelovich

Lauren Guth Barnes

NIX PATTERSON AUSTIN

HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 The 80-year-old firm begun by the legendary Abraham Pomerantz is no stranger to winning, from the founder’s Depression-era victory in a shareholder suit against National City Bank…to Lieberman’s negotiation of the record-setting $3B settlement from Brazilian oil company Petrobras.

“That toxic culture damages a company’s reputation and, more importantly, results in the loss of top female talent.” Pomerantz attorneys pride themselves on creating ground-breaking laws that help shape the law to better protect investors. In a recent, closely watched securities fraud action against Fiat Chrysler related to its vehicles’ non-compliance with diesel emissions regulations, the firm obtained an $110M settlement for the class. Michael Wernke, who led the litigation, says, “The Fiat Chrysler settlement is between 8.5 and 11.8 times that of the median for settlements of similarly-sized securities class actions. “In addition to creating precedent-setting case law in successfully defending the various motions to dismiss, Pomerantz also significantly advanced investors’ ability to obtain critically important discovery from regulators that are often at the center of securities actions,” he said. During the course of the litigation, Pomerantz sought the deposition of a former employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). The United States Department of Transportation (“USDOT”), like most federal agencies, has regulations governing when its employees may be called by private parties to testify in court. On their face, USDOT’s regulations apply to both current and former employees. In response to Pomerantz’s request to depose a former NHTSA employee that interacted with Fiat Chrysler, NHTSA denied the request, citing its regulations. Despite the widespread application, and assumed appropriateness, of applying the regulations to former employees throughout case law, Pomerantz filed an action against USDOT and NHTSA, arguing that the statute pursuant to which the regulations were enacted speaks only of “employees,” which should be interpreted to apply only to current employees. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Pomerantz’s clients.

“This victory will greatly shift the discovery tools available, so that investor plaintiffs in securities class actions against highly-regulated entities – for example, companies subject to FDA regulations – will now be able to depose former employees of the regulators that interacted with the defendants during the class period to get critical testimony concerning the company’s violations and misdeeds,” Wernke says. Anchoring the firm’s client services team is partner Jennifer Pafiti, who was a lynchpin of the Petrobras case and now is responsible for the firm’s $5.6T portfolio monitoring service, as well as her own roster of cases. Petrobras, however, will always stand out. “To be involved from the start in prosecuting a majority state-owned oil giant such as Petrobras and being part of the team responsible for one of the largest settlements in U.S. history, $3B, was personally satisfying and a fantastic achievement for investors.” As corporate fraud cases mount and the related settlements and verdicts increase in size, they have begun to reshape the stance that investors take toward such issues, says Pafiti. “Pension funds and asset managers have seen the benefit of working more closely with their attorneys before a corporate fraud issue arises with relation to an investment,” she says. “There has been a seismic shift from being reactive once an issue occurs, to being proactive and having systems in place so that when an issue arises, the fund is well-positioned to make informed decisions with a team they already know and trust. As attitudes and people’s appetite for what is acceptable changes, we are also seeing a lot more litigation resulting from environmental disasters, data breaches, and the #MeToo movement.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 26

Alexander Barnett

Bradley Beckworth

COTCHETT NEW YORK

NIX PATTERSON AUSTIN

Barry Barnett

Eric Belfi

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Randall Baron

Daniel Berger

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

David Barrett

Daniel Berger

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Michael Barry

Max Berger*

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Fred Bartlit*

Norman Berman

BARTLIT BECK DENVER

BERMAN TABACCO BOSTON

James Barz

Steve Berman

ROBBINS GELLER CHICAGO

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

David Beck*

Stuart Berman

BECK REDDEN HOUSTON

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Phil Beck*

Alexandra Bernay

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Matthew Berry

Swathi Bojedla

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Julia Beskin

Craig Boneau

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Rebecca Beynon

Amanda Bonn

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Vineet Bhatia

Rebecca Boon

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Peter Binkow

Jeniphr Breckenridge

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

Kristen Bird

John Briody

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

Michael Blatchley

Daniel Brockett

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

David Bocian

Davida Brook

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

David Boies*

Luke Brooks

BOIES SCHILLER ARMONK, N.Y.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Jeremy Lieberman POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

JEREMY LIEBERMAN IT’S HARD TO FIND A MORE COMPELLING

plaintiff securities litigator than Pomerantz managing partner, Jeremy A. Lieberman. He graduated from Fordham Law School in 2002, and, after a stint at a major defense firm, he switched sides – and never looked back. His easy manner belies his tenacious advocacy, which earned him a $3B settlement in the now-legendary Petrobras case – which was the largest securities class action settlement in a decade; the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer; the fifth-largest class action settlement ever achieved in the United States; the largest settlement ever achieved by a foreign lead plaintiff; and the largest class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports. In his 15 years at Pomerantz, he’s achieved billions in settlements; become managing partner of the firm; and gained a reputation as one of the next generation of leaders who will shape the securities litigation bar for decades to come. Lawdragon: Can you best describe the mix of work in the practice? Jeremy Lieberman: Sure. As managing partner, I oversee the entire firm and all of its practices – primarily securities fraud, which is our main focus, but also derivative, consumer, and antitrust litigation. I’m currently overseeing the work in dozens of lawsuits in which Pomerantz is lead counsel, making sure the quality of the work is exceptional, supervising the legal theories and our strategies both for pleading a fraud and pleading damages, and ultimately bringing those cases to resolution through settlement or trial. Within that oversight I’m more intently involved as lead counsel in about seven to ten cases on a day-to-day basis. LD: How did you first become interested and involved in the practice? JL: I took civil practice in law school, and while studying the federal rules of procedure, we read the book, “Civil Action,” which dealt with a mass tort case in Woburn, Mass. The events of the real case were the basis for a movie with John Travolta and Robert Duvall. Travolta played Jan Schlictmann, the attorney with a small personal injury practice who went against big corporations for releasing environmental toxins that led to deaths in Woburn. I was really attracted to that case and to the book, with its protagonist who went against the big guns

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY on behalf of the little guy, and it seemed like an excellent practice to go into. I should have perhaps heeded the book’s cautionary tale, because the real-life Schlictmann ultimately went bankrupt and had to fold his firm. But that book really turned me on to class actions. I started as an associate on the defense side, though, defending opioid litigation for the Sackler family’s Purdue Pharma – a company that Pomerantz is now litigating against in several cases. I’d notice news alerts on our Intranet regarding securities fraud class actions, and wanted to learn more about that area of law that I found so interesting. So, when I left the defense firm to look for another job, the first questions I would ask employers was if they worked on a contingency-fee basis, and if they did securities class actions. Pomerantz hit those two marks, and the rest, as they say, is history. LD: What are some aspects that keep you excited and satisfied about this job? JL: For one, the complexity of the points in question, such as how securities are issued and how to assess in what ways alleged fraud leads to damages to investors. Most of the defendants hire the best experts in the world, graduates of MIT, Harvard, and so on, and grappling with the labyrinthine issues in order to come up with a compelling case is a great challenge. For another, that we’re taking on cases on behalf of the defrauded, of the little guy, has a kind of David versus Goliath feeling. You’re representing the underrepresented, lending a voice to those who don’t have one, doing your utmost best to give them their day in court. It’s thrilling to be in court and argue a motion to dismiss, or argue in the Court of Appeals where you’re up against the best defense attorneys and do well against them. Obviously, winning is even better. The combination of pursuing justice and being on the right side of the case, and the high complexity and interesting factual issues that arise, keeps me engaged. LD: Over the course of your law career, what have been the most interesting matters you worked on? JL: There have been a number of them, but obviously the Petrobras case that we settled for $3B scores on the top of that list. Not only did we get a historic settlement, we litigated important issues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit regarding class certification and secured precedent-setting rulings.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Our lead plaintiff was a UK pension fund, University Superannuation Scheme, and they turned out to be the gold standard for the position. To work with them, to appreciate how engaged they were, was really a terrific experience. The case involved complex and highly contested issues, like whether or not a securities transaction was domestic or non-domestic, that made it extremely interesting. Judge [Jed] Rakoff held many hearings, and it was exciting to be on all the motion practice, to be litigating in front of him and against Skadden, against Cleary Gottlieb, some of the best funded and best trained defense counsel in the world. LD: Is there a recent professional move, development or achievement that you wish to discuss? JL: I’m continuing the firm’s tradition of expanding the scope of securities laws to benefit investors, addressing conduct that may not have been considered to impact them decades ago. For example, we’re lead counsel in a securities class action against Wynn Resorts stemming from accusations of sexual misconduct towards the company’s employees by its CEO, Steve Wynn. Is that something that securities laws deal with? We aim to convince the court that a company’s statements as to its compliance with its code of conduct are indeed actionable. Another legal area in which Pomerantz has been at the vanguard is that of foreign securities. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Morrison decision, which limited the scope of what’s considered a transaction in the United States, our firm, in litigation against BP plc, found a way to allow investors on the London Stock Exchange to get covered in the United States. We’ve also done so in cases against Mylan and against Perrigo, where we’re litigating on behalf of a dual-listed security, representing Israeli investors who purchased on the Tel Aviv exchange, and the court actually took jurisdiction over the Israeli shares. So, we have come up with interesting and novel ways to address Morrison, to address a globalized world, and found ways for investors to recover abroad and in the United States.

I also just mentioned the Mylan and Perrigo actions. These deal with a generic drug antitrust conspiracy, where 40 state attorney generals have accused these companies, as well as others, in engaging in the largest cartel in U.S. history. Pomerantz also represents dozens of institutional investors in the Teva Pharmaceuticals securities class action, also related to the generic drug conspiracy. When the items that appear in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal end up impacting share price, our cases reﬂect that. Also, when pharmaceutical companies tie the future of their companies to one drug, we’re seeing that too often companies will lie about the results or massage the numbers of the results in order to get FDA approval – that yields securities fraud lawsuits. LD: Can you describe key challenges in a recent matter? JL: This year we settled a case against Barclays plc for $27M, which was 28 percent of the alleged damages – a very high percentage. Barclays had encouraged institutional investors to trade in their “dark pool,” a private trading platform where the size and price of the orders are not revealed to other participants. At the same time, Barclays was inviting high-frequency traders and hedge funds to trade in the same pool. The high-frequency traders were getting access to the institutional investors’ trading information, and would front run a lot of their trades and ultimately force the institutional investors to trade at a higher price, because these high-frequency traders could anticipate the trades of the institutional investors. It was quite an interesting case.

LD: Are there any trends in the types of matters you’re currently litigating?

The Attorney General in New York announced a lawsuit against Barclays, resulting from this misconduct, and Barclays ultimately admitted to violating the securities laws with respect to their dark pool. However, the dark pool was less than one percent of the company’s revenue. It was actually 0.1 percent of the net income for Barclays, so there was a real question as to whether this misconduct was material to investors. We were able to convince the court that even though it was not a large part of the revenue steam, such fraudulent conduct by the company was indeed important to investors.

JL: The trends follow what everyone reads in the newspaper, and how those events impact the securities market. So, the #MeToo movement, obviously, has been much in the news, and we’re involved with litigation arising from sexual harassment claims, in the Wynn case and others.

A further challenge was that there were really very few statements regarding the dark pool in the company’s ﬁnancials. It was a challenge to ﬁnd statements to investors where the company had lied, where they were false and misleading. But we actually found statements, not in the company’s 10Qs and 10Ks,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

but rather in various publications where Barclays had advertised, Hedge Fund Weekly and other periodicals like that, where they made statements about the dark pool and the protections that they had in place for institutional investors. So it was a matter of finding liability, where per the ordinary course, there wouldn’t have been a case. We were up against Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the best law firms in the nation. We got a class certified by Judge [Shira] Scheindlin of the district court, which the defendants challenged in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue was whether or not, in order to meet the evidentiary preponderance requirements for certifying a class, plaintiffs needed to produce an event study to show that there was a cause and effect relationship between misstatements and a company’s stock price. In the 2nd Circuit, it was common practice to include such an event study - everybody believed you needed to include one. But the 2nd Circuit actually ruled in our favor, deciding in Barclays that it was not required to have an event study. The 2nd Circuit is the busiest circuit of securities class actions in the world, so that was really a precedentsetting decision for investors. Defendants tried to bring motions for summary judgment, and we got through those attempts, and were about six weeks away from trial when we achieved the excellent result of 28 percent recovery for defrauded investors. It was aggressive and tenacious litigating, and really a terrific outcome. LD: What is the impact on the industry from this matter? JL: It’s going to be easier to certify a class in the 2nd Circuit, and it’s going to be easier in circuits throughout the nation, because many look to the 2nd Circuit for guidance. This case lightened the burden of proof on plaintiffs seeking class certification, and will be cited by district courts and circuit courts throughout the nation for decades to come. LD: Is there a specific lesson from this work or is there anything from it you will find especially memorable? JL: The lesson is twofold: One, that the practice of using event studies was examined and found not to apply for securities class actions. Event studies are used by economists when looking at hundreds of companies and trying to understand trends with respect to those companies. In the securities world, it never really made a lot of sense, but it was common practice. Using common sense, and understanding what was the purpose of the event study, and what it was trying to achieve, and breaking that down for

the 2nd Circuit was how we got the court to rule that it was not indeed necessary to prove a case in a securities class action. So by Pomerantz looking at securities fraud cases not from an academic but from a common sense perspective, it helped the investors, and it helped the court wade through these issues. Two, the importance of being tenacious. At many points throughout the case, it might have been easier to settle for a lower number and just give up. There were many challenges throughout and we could have settled earlier, but we kept plodding on and earned a much better result than we could have achieved at any earlier point. Plodding on, being tenacious, and being prepared to go to trial are methods that will ultimately get you a good result for the class. LD: What advice would you give a current law student? JL: Take a wide variety of courses. Explore issues and fields of law to find your passion, what really interests you. Whether it’s entertainment law or corporate law, if it’s something you’re really interested in, subject matter you really like, pursue that with passion, and success will follow. I was lucky enough to find this field and learn about class actions, about securities litigation, and things went well from there. If you like what you’re doing, that’s already a good part of the reward. LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation or case that you admire, and why? JL: Nearly all of them. There’s Lewis Liman from Cleary Gottlieb, recently nominated to be a district court judge, who represented Petrobras in the shareholder litigation. He was a formidable adversary and it was really a pleasure to negotiate and work on the case with him. Jay Kasner and Scott Musoff at Skadden, who represented underwriters in that case, are also fantastic lawyers and excellent adversaries. There are so many other superb defense counsel I’ve met in other cases; I’d name them all if there was time and space. LD: What do you do for fun, other than work? JL: I love karaoke but I don’t know if it’s as much fun for the people listening to me. One of the key changes that was made at Pomerantz since I’ve become partner is that at every firm party, we have karaoke. And we make every new partner sing karaoke in order to seal their partnership appointment. As far as fun outside the office, I play softball every Sunday in spring and summer. Somehow, between hanging out with my wife and kids, I manage to get out and play some softball on weekends.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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 Susman Godfrey partner and force of nature. 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 House Canary, 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 34

Benjamin Brown

Christopher Burke

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SCOTT + SCOTT SAN DIEGO

Deborah Brown

Spencer Burkholz

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

John Browne

Michael Burnett

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

SCOTT + SCOTT OMAHA, NEB.

Joshua Bruckerhoff

Elaine Byszewski

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

HAGENS BERMAN LOS ANGELES

Gustavo Bruckner

Elizabeth Cabraser

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

David Buchanan

Diane Cafferata

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

Jacob Buchdahl

Ophelia Camina

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Michael Buchman

Melinda Campbell

MOTLEY RICE NEW YORK

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

Jonathan Bunge

Jeffrey Campisi

QUINN EMANUEL CHICAGO

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Michael Carlinsky

Darren Check

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Bill Carmody

Nicholas Chimicles

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

CHIMICLES HAVERFORD, PA.

George Carpinello

Michael Ciresi*

BOIES SCHILLER ALBANY, N.Y.

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

Shanon Carson

Joy Clairmont

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Johnny Carter

Deborah Clark-Weintraub

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

Laura Kissel Cassidy

Mary Louise Cohen

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gregory Castaldo

Scott Cole

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

MCKOOL SMITH AUSTIN

Lin Chan

Jason Collins

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Peter Wilson Chatfield

Todd Collins

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) 36

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Craig Boneau REID COLLINS & TSAI (AUSTIN)

CRAIG BONEAU CRAIG BONEAU WAS ADDED TO LAWDRAGON’S

500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers last year, and it’s no wonder: In the past decade, Boneau has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for hedge funds, bankruptcy trustees, and major companies harmed by corporate misconduct or fraud. A former high school physics teacher and basketball coach, Boneau was drawn to the varied and complex life of the financial plaintiffs’ lawyer, and found a perfect fit at the boutique firm Reid Collins & Tsai. He is regularly up against Big Law firms and their clients, from major banks to other law firms to Fortune 100 companies — and he loves every minute of it. Lawdragon: Will you please describe your practice for our readers, and your approach to it? Craig Boneau: I almost exclusively represent plaintiffs in commercial litigation, the majority of which have some tie to a financial fraud or other financial shenanigans. Many of my cases arise out of an insolvency proceeding, whether that be a U.S. bankruptcy or an

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY ALISON PREECE offshore liquidation. We bring a variety of claims, but the general buckets they fall into are fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and professional malpractice. The most common defendants are law firms, directors and officers, auditors, and banks. Nearly all of my cases are on an alternative fee arrangement, whether they be full contingency or a mixed-fee with flat fees combined with a contingent fee. LD: Were you always interested in plaintiff-side work? CB: After spending time in Big Law as a summer associate in law school, I knew I wanted to be in a boutique that was less rigid in its approach to practicing law. When I met Bill Reid at on-campus interviews for my 2L summer, he convinced me that the firm he was at at the time would be a perfect fit. That firm did similar work to what we do at Reid Collins, and so that is how I was introduced to the area of law I currently practice. The reality is that I didn’t seek out the specific work, I really sought out a specific way of practicing, and the subject matter of the work was really secondary. But, after being introduced to

PHOTO BY: LAURA CROSTA

500

plaintiffs’ side, complex commercial litigation, I never looked back and I really enjoy it.

LD: Did you know back then that you wanted to be a lawyer?

LD: What are some things you enjoy most about it?

CB: Not especially. I came to law in a roundabout way. But, looking back, it does make sense that I enjoy practicing law, especially in the way we do it at Reid Collins. While an undergrad at the University of Texas I changed my major about six times. Those majors ranged from petroleum and geosystems engineering to history, and many places in between. And I ultimately finished with a Psychology degree. The reality was that I found many things interesting, and so did not really want to settle on any one thing. It turns out, law actually is a great place for that because every case presents a new world that I get to learn about. And when the case is over, in addition to hopefully getting a great result for my client, I come out with an education in a new field. So for an undergrad who wanted to major in everything, it’s perfect. Law was a great fit for me.

CB: Being on the plaintiffs’ side of a complex commercial litigation is fun. On the front end, because almost all of our cases involve some aspect of financial fraud, we first get to solve the puzzle of what happened and why. Then we get to figure out who was involved and is subject to liability as a result. Next we get to formulate a strategy with our clients about the best way to approach the litigation, who to sue, where to sue, what claims to bring, and how to avoid the various defenses that we see time and time again in our practice. That process from when a case comes in to when we have a full blown litigation strategy is very intellectually challenging, and is a blast. It allows us to really work together as a team, both within the firm, and with our clients. As a former high school basketball coach, and even further back a player, I love being a part of a team and think it is by far the best way to get to the best result, and do it in the most efficient way possible. Then, once we have our strategy sorted out, we get to litigate, and hopefully obtain a recovery for our clients, who are either people who were damaged by some kind of corporate malfeasance or representatives of those folks. So really, every aspect of the process is something I enjoy. LD: That’s interesting, that your time as a basketball coach is still serving you today! CB: It really is. I was also a high school biology and physics teacher. I learned a ton from those experiences, including how to lead teams, explain complex ideas in a simple way, and connect with a diverse group of people depending on each individuals’ unique situation. All of those lessons have translated into my practice whether that is in my interactions with clients, our team, opposing counsel, or in court.

LD: That’s great advice for students who aren’t interested in just one major. CB: Absolutely. For a person that enjoys learning about a variety of things, law is the perfect ﬁt because law itself is such a wide ranging topic. And, each case has its own mini-education on whatever the underlying subject matter is. LD: How did you decide to attend Columbia for your J.D.? CB: I grew up in Texas, went to undergrad at the University of Texas, and then taught and coached in Texas high schools. Law school was a great opportunity for me to try a new place. So, after weighing a number of options, I chose Columbia because it is a great law school and because I wanted to experience living in New York City. LD: Did you enter law school thinking you would be a litigator, doing plaintiff work, focused on the ﬁnancial industry?

BEING ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ SIDE OF A COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IS FUN. THAT PROCESS, FROM WHEN A CASE COMES IN TO WHEN WE HAVE A FULL BLOWN LITIGATION STRATEGY, IS VERY INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGING, AND IS A BLAST. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF REID COLLINS IS OUR WILLINGNESS TO APPROACH EACH CASE WITHOUT A PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF HOW THE CASE SHOULD BE LITIGATED. ALL OF OUR CASES HAVE INTERESTING QUIRKS ABOUT THEM. CB: When I got to law school, I really did not know what practicing law looked like. No one in my family had gone to law school, neither my mom nor dad went to college and neither of my grandfathers finished high school. So, my background did not give me much perspective on what life would be as a lawyer. But, after my 1L summer at a large law firm, I knew I had no interest in transactional work, and no interest in litigating from the Big Law side of things. Instead I wanted to litigate in a boutique environment where I got experience early and I was able to curate our approach to a case based on the most effective way to get a result for our clients. LD: So you entered the field of law with very fresh eyes! Did you have any mentors that helped you navigate the profession in the early days? CB: Definitely. Bill Reid has been a mentor from the beginning of my career. He took me under his wing early on and ensured that I had great opportunities to grow professionally and succeed. His approach is certainly not one of hand-holding, but is instead about making sure young lawyers have a chance to get up on their feet and actually practice law as soon as they are ready and willing. Having those early experiences conducting witness interviews as a first year, taking depositions and arguing motions as a second year, and taking the day-to-day lead of a case as a fourth year accelerated my professional growth, and made practicing law more fun in those early years. The other thing Bill has always done is include the young lawyers in everything he is doing. So early on, I was on calls, going to hearings, and participating in mediations, and able to watch and learn from how he approached the practice of law. The other person I would point to is Rachel Fleishman, who is the partner in charge of our New York office. Her willingness to patiently teach me the nuts and bolts of what being a lawyer is about was absolutely essential to my development. She has an incred-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ible attention to detail, and that applies to how she helps young lawyers. From her I learned how to substantively approach a hearing or a deposition, and I learned how to handle the non-substantive parts that can trip up a young lawyer like how to get an exhibit marked and passed to a witness. She went as far as giving us young lawyers vocal lessons so we were confident in projecting our voice and enunciating our words. The combination of Bill and Rachel as mentors was in many ways about as perfect a combination as you can get as a young attorney, someone who is actively trying to find you opportunities very early on, and someone who is willing to spend the time to make sure you know what you’re doing when those opportunities come. I was incredibly lucky to have both of them in my corner. LD: Strong mentors are so important. Is there a specific case you’ve handled over the course of your career that stands out as particularly interesting? CB: One of the hallmarks of Reid Collins is our willingness to approach each case without a preconceived notion of how the case should be litigated. All of our cases have interesting quirks about them, which cause us to be willing and able to apply a novel approach to address whatever unique issues each case presents. So they are really almost all interesting in their own way. LD: What do you do for fun outside the office? CB: Spend time with my family. I have a 7-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl so my free time is pretty dedicated to hanging out with my wife and those two. We love camping, so we spend a lot of time building fires and roasting marshmallows. We also love taking advantage of all the wonderful things Austin has to offer, like great outdoor spaces, restaurants, and whatever festival is happening. There’s pretty much always something going on.

500

Erin Green Comite

Sam Cruse III

SCOTT + SCOTT COLCHESTER, CONN.

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

Jan Conlin

Andrew Curley

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Nathan Cook

Patrick Dahlstrom

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

POMERANTZ CHICAGO

Melinda Coolidge

Patrick Daniels

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Joseph Cotchett*

Merrill Davidoff

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Patrick Coughlin*

Timothy DeLange

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

WOLLMUTH MAHER SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Eric Cramer

P. Bradford deLeeuw

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

DELEEUW LAW WILMINGTON, DEL.

Joshua Crowell

Michael Dellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Angelo

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Gary Cruciani

Marisa DeMato

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

It was the mid-2000s, and Brockett had just joined Quinn in Los Angeles when he backed a firm decision to switch from representing Wall Street banks and other financial institutions – which had been his focus at Davis Polk at the start of his career – to suing them. The move was a risky one and not altogether unanimous at Quinn Emanuel. It proved prescient in just a few years, however, when a bubble in the $15T U.S. housing market collapsed and mortgage-backed securities that had become one of the hottest commodities on Wall Street lost much of their value. That led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the country; froze short-term credit markets worldwide; and sparked a financial crisis that would send unemployment surging to 10 percent in the U.S. and wipe out trillions in market value.

Daniel Brockett QUINN EMANUEL (NEW YORK)

DANIEL BROCKETT BY JAMES LANGFORD

THE PROBLEM WAS ACADEMIC, REALLY. Academic in the sense that the career opportunities open to Daniel Brockett after he completed the doctorate he was then pursuing in philosophy would be largely constrained to teaching positions and professorships at major universities.

Afterward, predictably, “there was a tremendous amount of opportunity in litigation against the major banks, including cases involving residential mortgage-backed securities,” says Brockett, a nononsense litigator who has won billions of dollars in awards, verdicts, and settlements for his clients over the course of his career. “If you had a case against a major Wall Street bank, Quinn Emanuel became the firm of choice,” he adds. “Whereas most other firms in New York are looking to represent the banks in some capacity, we decided to go adverse and that resulted in significant new business for the firm.” Lawdragon: Impressive. And this was a black-swan event, too, not one that you could have foreseen when you decided to go up against the banks. Was there ever a serious conversation about the risk of not keeping your hand in with Wall Street?

“I was kinda sick of being poor at that point in life,” the Quinn Emanuel partner recalls. “So I thought that law school would be a good alternative. I knew I had the personality to be a stand-up litigator.”

Daniel Brockett: Definitely. There was an array of views within the firm and there was some concern expressed by partners whom we had recruited from blue-chip New York firms who had significant contacts within the banking community. Even with our decision to represent major investors in cases adverse to banks (the “buy-side” of the financial markets), we did continue to represent certain “sell-side” banks and continue to do so today.

More than 20 years later, after obtaining a law degree at the University of Pittsburgh and stints at Davis Polk & Wardwell and Squire Sanders & Dempsey, another about-face brought an equally transformative effect.

LD: It’s a good reminder, isn’t it? In retrospect it seems so obvious that it was a brilliant decision, but at the time it was less certain. So with your move into high-stakes, non-billable litigation, what are some of the lessons of the past 10 years for you?

It was, he realized, not a goal he wanted to spend another four years pursuing, especially with the limited earning potential as a career academic.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

DB: One is that if you want to secure multibilliondollar awards in cases, you have to be prepared to take extraordinary risks and you have to have a firm that has deep pockets which can and is willing to finance a case of that kind. You have to have extremely talented lawyers who can go toe-to-toe with the best defense firms in the world. Quinn Emanuel has the resources and talent to take on these cutting edge cases, and we can sometimes position them for large settlements. We are somewhat unique in this respect. If you are a smaller firm, and you want to take on the entire banking industry, for example, you will often need to co-counsel with a group of other plaintiff law firms each of whom will chip in resources and money. Even then, Quinn Emanuel often gets better settlements because of our size, talent, deep bench, and credible trial threat. LD: One of the things I’m always interested in is the pathways that people take to become lawyers, and in your case, a litigator. Have you found your philosophy studies useful in your work? DB: I was studying logic and philosophy science, philosophy of language. More of the Anglo-American tradition, really. And I use logic, for certain. Being able to connect pieces of evidence is beneficial to telling a compelling story to a judge or jury. LD: Interesting. At what point did you decide to specialize in litigation? DB: After law school, I clerked for the chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It was 1983 to1984, and a lot of things were happening with Wall Street, and I wanted to be where the action was. I tried working on some corporate deals at Davis Polk but found litigation a more natural fit. LD: So you went to Davis Polk. Can you tell me about some of those cases? DB: I was representing a lot of investment banks like Morgan Stanley, handling securities defense and antitrust and merger cases. So, I was really very much representing the financial establishment in a defense capacity there. While I’m on the other side now, seeing how they make and analyze things has been very helpful to me. LD: Did you have a particular mentor at Davis Polk who influenced you? DB: Not really. Henry King, Bob Wise, Lew Kaden were all influential. It was a great firm, though, and I got a lot of excellent training. I began to see how to

try cases, and I did have an opportunity to try a big case while I was there. I was deputized and became a trial lawyer for the attorney disciplinary committee. I tried a case against a prominent personal injury lawyer for a pattern of ethical violations. And I was in front of a state court judge. LD: And then later, you went to Squire Sanders, is that right? DB: Yes. It was 1990, and New York was going through a huge recession. There was a general consensus in the legal community that there was going to be a huge dropoff in business in the city, and I wanted to raise my kids in the Midwest, where I grew up. So I accepted a job at Squire Sanders and moved back to my hometown of Cleveland. It was very much going home. I stayed there for 12 years, then got a call from Quinn Emanuel, asking me to join them. So I went to California, while my family stayed behind in Cleveland. And then I moved back to New York, which had been the plan all along. LD: So you’ve been at Quinn since its formative years. DB: It was in a formative phase, certainly, when I arrived. I was there when it was just a New York office and California offices and I witnessed the huge growth. LD: You’ve certainly done some amazing work there. Are there cases you’re working on now that you find fascinating – that you can talk about? DB: There’s an interest-rate swaps case against 11 of the major banks that are alleged to have blocked electronic platforms for trading swaps – a type of financial instrument – from getting into the market. The broader context is how the banks have extraordinarily benefited for many, many years, even decades, from what’s called the over-the-counter system, where if you want to do an interest-rate swap (or trade any derivative) with a bank, you need to call somebody on the phone and they’ll give you a quote, they’ll give you pricing and you don’t really have the ability to go shop around. The search costs of getting quotes from multiple banks are very, very high. And in that environment, you know the bank’s margins are also very high. Now if you had, instead, an electronic platform where everybody could go and you had transparent pricing and lots of liquidity, the banks would be forced to transact in these products at much tighter spreads. So they don’t want the electronification of the markets, especially in these derivative products like interest-rate swaps. This is a case about how they allegedly got together even after the Dodd-Frank Act,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

IF YOU WANT TO SECURE MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR AWARDS IN CASES, YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO TAKE EXTRAORDINARY RISKS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIRM THAT HAS DEEP POCKETS WHICH CAN AND IS WILLING TO FINANCE A CASE OF THAT KIND. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXTREMELY TALENTED LAWYERS WHO CAN GO TOE-TOTOE WITH THE BEST DEFENSE FIRMS IN THE WORLD. which was a big push towards more transparency in the markets, and conspired to block these platforms from entering the market. LD: Fascinating. And how far along is the case? DB: The class certiﬁcation is fully briefed, and we’re awaiting a decision on that. LD: Tell me about some of the others. DB: The stock-loan case is another case that’s very active now. It’s a similar claim, but it involves a completely different industry. This has to do with how hedge funds have to borrow stock from pension funds and others when they want to do short sales. Basically, a short sale is a bet that a stock’s price is going to fall. Investors who think that will happen can borrow stock, sell it, then repurchase it once the price goes down. At that point, they can return the borrowed shares to the owner and pocket the difference. And so this is a case about how the banks allegedly put themselves in the middle of these stock loan trades, requiring the pension funds to deal with them to lend the stock and then the banks in turn would allow the hedge funds that were doing the shorting to borrow the stock. And it’s also very much a case of banks having allegedly worked together to make sure that the market evolves in a way that’s most favorable to them. Of course, in fairness, the banks would disagree with these statements and would give a different description of the case.

we work well with that firm. I have many others, but that’s an example of two that are going on right now. LD: What case would you say was the most fascinating of your career? DB: When I was at Squire Sanders, I represented British Petroleum in a suit against Chinese actors over the theft of very important, viable technology to build large chemical plants for the production of acetic acid. It’s used in many industries, including textiles, and this happened at a time when acetic acid had been designated as a priority industry by the Chinese government. The processes for developing chemicals such as that are extremely difficult to develop independently; it often takes years and major investments. BP found out about the theft when some vendors that dealt in specialized parts for these plants were given specifications for equipment from some Chinese companies and they recognized the technology as BP’s and told BP about it. So we sued the Chinese government in the U.S. and tried to block the export of the equipment to China. LD: So there was international intrigue. DB: Exactly. And they defended by saying that they bought the technology on the open market, and so therefore they had a free title. Delving into it, there was a translator at a plant in the Soviet Union where BP licensed this technology who had stolen all the manuals and sold them to the Chinese for $1M.

LD: I love that you’re taking on these big cases against banks and other ﬁnancial institutions.

LD: How fun. So you were a detective in a sense, tracking all of this down?

DB: It’s very interesting work. And the firm is supporting these cases financially and we have a partner firm, Cohen Milstein. They are excellent lawyers and

DB: Right. Ultimately, it entailed a series of cases, but we won an injunction to block the export of the reactor piece of equipment. All the cases were very successful.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Lawrence Deutsch

Thomas Dubbs

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Jeffrey Dickstein

Suzanne Dugan

PHILLIPS & COHEN MIAMI

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kimberly Donaldson Smith

Lisl Dunlop

CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ HAVERFORD, PA.

AXINN NEW YORK

Kathleen Donovan-Maher

Karen Dunn

BERMAN TABACCO BOSTON

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Diane Doolittle

Steven Durham

QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

LABATON SUCHAROW WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mike Dowd*

Karen Dyer

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

BOIES SCHILLER ORLANDO

Travis Downs III

Amy Easton

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michelle Drake

Jay Eisenhofer

BERGER MONTAGUE MINNEAPOLIS

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Daniel Drosman

Robert Eisler

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Jennifer Pafiti POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

500

JENNIFER PAFITI Jennifer Pafiti worked as a financial advisor before attending law school at the prestigious Inns of Court in the UK. She has since built a robust securities practice, including a lead role in the historic $3B securities class action settlement against the Brazilian energy company Petrobras. Her practice also includes regularly advising clients on their investment portfolios and championing shareholders’ rights with regulators. She is based in Los Angeles. Lawdragon: Will you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Jennifer Pafiti: As head of the firm’s Client Services team, I am responsible for a number of areas within the practice. I am the primary point of contact for clients and along with my team am responsible for the firm’s $5.3T portfolio monitoring service. In addition to that, I also maintain an active caseload of complex securities class action cases. LD: How did you first become interested in securities litigation? JP: I fell into the practice somewhat by chance. I was working as a litigator in the United Kingdom when I decided to move to the U.S. to litigate in the American courts. The first firm I worked for was the largest securities class action firm in the U.S. From there I developed my client base and practice. In 2004 I moved to Pomerantz to head the Client Services team, a decision that served me well. I was given the opportunity to expand a client base and get involved in some very complex cases. It has been an experience full of education and excitement.

BY ALISON PREECE LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What keeps you excited about it? JP: I very much enjoy being with clients and finding solutions to problems. Every day brings something new and different; boredom is never an option! I travel frequently throughout the U.S. and Europe to advise clients on how best to evaluate losses to their investment portfolios attributable to financial fraud or other misconduct, and how best to maximize their potential recoveries. I also am regularly invited to speak on securities litigation and fiduciary duty to boards of directors and also at educational events. Another highly satisfying aspect of my role at Pomerantz is heading the firm’s institutional investor educational initiatives. I organize both the small and largescale conferences around the world that Pomerantz sponsors every year. In 2018, I organized a Corporate Governance and Securities Litigation roundtable event in New York on the theme of women and minorities who have risen through the ranks and pioneered the path for change and unity in our communities. Speakers, experts in their fields, included counsel to international asset management companies, leaders of major public pension funds, and government officials. We had a tremendous response, with institutional investors from around the world attending. Their enthusiasm was contagious, and it was exciting to be part of such a dynamic and fruitful exchange of ideas. I am proud that the guest speaker at our next roundtable event in Los Angeles in June 2020 will be President Bill Clinton. I have also enjoyed attracting, and listening to, such diverse and notable speakers to

A HIGHLY SATISFYING ASPECT OF MY ROLE AT POMERANTZ IS HEADING THE FIRM’S INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES. I ORGANIZE BOTH THE SMALL AND LARGE-SCALE CONFERENCES AROUND THE WORLD THAT POMERANTZ SPONSORS EVERY YEAR. PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 48

Deborah Elman

Aimee Perilloux Fagan

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

David Elsberg

Eric Fastiff

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Michael Elsner

Mark Ferguson

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Candice Enders

Kenneth Fetterman

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Holly Engelmann

Julie Fieber

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

Donald Enright

Reid Figel

LEVI & KORSINSKY WASHINGTON, D.C.

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Vincent Esades

Rachel Fleishman

HEINS MILLS MINNEAPOLIS

REID COLLINS NEW YORK

John Eubanks

Jodi Westbrook Flowers

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

Donna Evans

Parker Folse*

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I WAS A REGULATED FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND SENIOR MORTGAGE UNDERWRITER AT A MAJOR BANK IN THE UK. TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND COMPLEX FINANCIAL PRODUCTS HAS BEEN VERY USEFUL, ESPECIALLY FOLLOWING THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRASH AND THE LITIGATION THAT FOLLOWED. Pomerantz events in London as members of the British House of Lords and the former Mayor of London and current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? JP: The Petrobras case without doubt. To be involved from the start in prosecuting a majority state-owned oil giant such as Petrobras and being part of the team responsible for one of the largest settlements in U.S. history, $3B, was personally satisfying and a fantastic achievement for investors. It was also a terrific experience to work closely with the lead plaintiff for the class, Universities Superannuation Scheme, one of the largest principal private pension schemes for universities and other higher education institutions in the UK. It was the very first time they served as lead plaintiff, and they did brilliantly. Preparing for trial and a pending Supreme Court appearance kept me on the edge of my seat and navigating a number of procedural challenges and delays was a test of patience. But it was worth it because the recovery was phenomenal and exceeded all expectations. LD: What trends you are seeing in your practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days? JP: It is apparent in the past few years that pension funds and asset managers have seen the benefit of working more closely with their attorneys before a corporate fraud issue arises with relation to an investment. There has been a seismic shift from being reactive once an issue occurs, to being proactive and having systems in place so that when an issue arises, the fund is well positioned to make informed decisions with a team they already know and trust. As attitudes and people’s appetite for what is acceptable changes, we are also seeing a lot more event-driven litigation resulting from environmental disasters, data breaches, and the #MeToo movement.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law? JP: I think that a lot of skills earned from one’s undergraduate work are transferable to any job one does. What is very important in my line of work, and which may just be an inherent characteristic rather than a developed skill, is the desire to want to do your very best at whatever task is before you. Attention to detail is a must. And so is really caring about your clients so that they know they can trust you are doing the absolute best job for them. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that perhaps contributed to you going to law school? JP: I was a regulated financial advisor and senior mortgage underwriter at a major bank in the UK. To be able to understand complex financial products has been very useful, especially following the 2008 financial crash and the litigation that followed, often involving the sale of extremely complex financial products to investors. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose your law school over another law school? JP: I was honored to attend the Inns of Court in the UK, perhaps one of the most prestigious institutions, with such notable alumni as former Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? JP: Don’t be afraid to think or speak outside the box. Learn to form your own opinions and be able to justify them. Consider taking the lead every once in a while with a new idea or approach, but be humble enough to learn from others. A wise man once said to me, “If you are the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room!”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

time) – and that has been passed down through the generations,” Baig says. “He used to hold court at the dinner table and present views and ask people to offer opinions and make arguments. I first learned about law at those family dinners, through him and later through his daughters who became lawyers.” After earning her bachelor’s degree at Brown University and a J.D. at American University, Baig found her first job at the firm established by her aunts, Therese and Barbara Lawless, in San Francisco. “It was a transformative experience, because when you work for a small plaintiffs’ firm like that, you gain experience fast,” says Baig. “There isn’t a large team to do the work, so you’re it. If there’s a summary judgment that comes in, if there’s a motion to dismiss that needs to be opposed, you’re it. If there’s an important hearing and you’ve written the brief, you know it the best, you argue it. And you take it to trial too.”

Aelish Baig ROBBINS GELLER (SAN FRANCISO)

AELISH BAIG BY KATRINA DEWEY

HER PARENTS WERE ARTISTS AND TEACHERS, yet there was no escaping the law for Aelish Baig.

Her grandfather, former New York Supreme Court Judge William Lawless, was not only a legendary lawyer, he served as dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School and helped Nixon-era Attorney General John Mitchell’s wife prepare for her deposition during the Watergate inquiry of the 1970s. Of his 12 children, four became attorneys themselves and some married lawyers. Grandchildren also succumbed. “Conversations at the big family dinners were always about what was happening in the world: law, politics, elections, whatever was pressing in the news at the time,” recalls Baig, a partner in the San Francisco ofﬁce of Robbins Geller, where she specializes in federal securities law and consumer class action cases. “There was vigorous debate at those dinners – everyone held an opinion, and voiced it (often at the same 50

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

After several years at Lawless & Lawless, Baig moved to Robbins Geller, where she won a $67M settlement from Wells Fargo over claims of robosigning foreclosure papers and was part of the team that prosecuted stock-option backdating claims. She is a critical part of the Robbins Geller team leading the mammoth case against opioid manufacturers on behalf of the firm’s city, county and state government clients around the country, In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation. Lawdragon: It sounds like your family was a legal community in its own right. Was your first trial at Lawless & Lawless? Aelish Baig: Yes, my family was and still is a growing legal community. My first trial was a race discrimination case against a major multinational company. It was a true David versus Goliath case where I went in this wide-eyed, true-believing young lawyer and came out successful and seasoned but also bruised and having experienced unique challenges all around, not only from the defense, which was about as scorched earth as I have seen to this day, but also from our own clients who were struggling with the trauma of re-living the discrimination and abuse they had suffered. LD: Once you get through the first trial or two and you’re still standing on your feet, then you’re becoming a trial lawyer, right? AB: That’s right. My aunts’ firm tried a lot of cases, so we had plenty. And I was hired at my current firm because of that trial experience, to work on the early termination fees cases that were headed to trial at the time.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

LD: Let’s go back a little further. Tell me more about your childhood, how and where you grew up. AB: I grew up all over, really. I was born in Cleveland. I lived with my mother and step-dad and we moved to Ireland for about a year and a half or so, then to Los Angeles, and then to Cape Cod, Mass., for high school. It was a lot of moves; my parents were young at the time, and still finding their paths. We moved to Ireland when my step-dad was in school, and then he was offered a job in LA, and off we went. When we lived in LA, he was working for the Motion Picture Association of America. His job was to rate movies: G, PG, R, X. When he returned to teaching, we moved from Los Angeles to Cape Cod - quite a move for a teenager. But I think, in retrospect, all the moving around has made me better able to relate to and identify with all kinds of people, which serves me well now. Law, of course, was familiar to me, even though it was more in my extended family than in my immediate family. LD: Did you like practicing with your aunts? And how did you wind up at Robbins Geller? AB: Of course. I love my aunts, and I have enormous respect and admiration for their practice, which is employment law. I was there four or five years, and they taught me a great deal about all aspects of litigation from client intake to trial and everything in between. Then when I came to Robbins Geller, I had an opportunity to work on class cases which by their nature have a broad reach in terms of impact, and I was drawn to that. Whatever is happening in the country, the most cutting edge issues facing the nation, that is what we are working on, and that is endlessly fascinating. Our work crosses so many industries, tech, banks, insurance, pharma – the full gamut. And with each new case we go from knowing very little to almost everything about that company and its business. In 2006 and 2007 we were doing the backdating cases, and then the financial crisis hit and we transitioned to mortgage foreclosure cases and then insurance fraud. We draw upon our past litigation experience, of course, but the work is always changing, evolving, just like the law. It keeps you engaged in issues of great import, and I love that about it. LD: Are there cases you’ve handled at Robbins Geller that are particularly meaningful, perhaps because of what you learned or the result you obtained? AB: The opioid litigation. The harm caused by the alleged bad acts is the most egregious I’ve seen in more than two decades of practice. I knew nothing about it at first, but was asked by a state in the Rust Belt to look

into Big Pharma’s role in fueling the epidemic about four years ago. So I did. I began by reading “Dreamland” by Sam Quinones, and “Drug Dealer, MD” by Anna Lembke, and then started to investigate. With every stone unturned, it became increasingly clear that a complaint had to be written. The fraud was so pervasive and caused such destruction, the breadth of the harm, unimaginable. So we wrote the first complaint, and then we wrote about 40 more for government clients across the country, all suffering as a result of the alleged false marketing and failure to report suspicious orders by defendants. Virtually every person I encounter, even now, if I tell them what I’m working on, they’ll tell me about a person they’ve lost or about someone they know who’s struggling with addiction. I’ve heard countless stories. There isn’t anyone who’s not touched by this, if not by one, then two or three degrees of separation. To me, that alone makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Interestingly, this case has brought me back to my birthplace, Cleveland, as that is where the case is venued. Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is, was among the first bellwethers in the opioid litigation, a county devastated by the epidemic, and I still have deep family roots there who have experienced the impacts of the opioid epidemic first hand. I hope to be part of the solution to the opioid crisis, in Cleveland, in San Francisco, and nationwide. It is such a massive and complex case; and while the evidence is overwhelmingly in our favor, there are many challenges to resolution, hopefully surmountable sooner rather than later, as people continue to overdose every day. LD: It’s like Big Tobacco at a certain point. You get to a tipping where it’s like, “What were we even thinking?” How did opioids come to be in every household and everybody thought that was OK? AB: Once you begin to grasp how Big Pharma has infiltrated all aspects of medical education, then you can see exactly how that happens. It has become a systemic problem: the people who are making decisions about what medicines ought to be prescribed receive much of their information from pharma sales reps, or from industry physicians or associations funded by pharma to disseminate messaging. And who creates the messaging? The marketing department of the pharmaceutical company whose compensation is directly tied to maximizing sales. And those pharma employees charged with reporting suspicious orders to the DEA, their compensation is also tied to maximizing sales. All of this is deeply problematic.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 52

Jason Forge

Benjamin Galdston

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

BERGER MONTAGUE SAN DIEGO

Christine Fox

Reena Gambhir

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Frederic Fox

Jonathan Gardner

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

David Frederick

Karin Garvey

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

William Fredericks

Faith Gay

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

Michael Freed

Paul Geller

FREED KANNER BANNOCKBURN, ILL.

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.

Jeff Friedman

Eric George

HAGENS BERMAN BERKELEY, CALIF.

BROWNE GEORGE LOS ANGELES

Michael Fritz

Adam Gerchen

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Qianwei Fu

Robin Gibbs*

ZELLE SAN FRANCISCO

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

WHEN I CAME TO ROBBINS GELLER, I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON CLASS CASES WHICH BY THEIR NATURE HAVE A BROAD REACH IN TERMS OF IMPACT, AND I WAS DRAWN TO THAT. Once you realize that, you don’t walk into a doctor’s ofﬁce the same way again. There has to be some self-advocacy and access to information from independent sources, information that is not coming from someone trying to sell you something. And that’s hard to do. Pharma is controlling medical associations, for example, where you see what presents as an advocacy group for people in pain, but actually operates to promote drugs for Big Pharma. So is their information unbiased? Not really. Not even close. This blurring of the lines between science and medical marketing, between physicians and sales reps, results in the spread of false information about drugs to the public. And that’s how you wind up with the masses believing that opioids are safe and effective for everyday use ... for all kinds of pain ... that they’re mostly non-addictive. That messaging was masterfully designed and disseminated by the marketing departments of Big Pharma – to great success, they made billions – and yet, nothing could be further from the truth. This creates incredible problems in our health care system, and that is, frankly, tragic. LD: That’s where ﬁrms like yours make an enormous difference in our country and in our legal system, because you have to have the wherewithal to tackle those issues. You have to have the endurance. You have to know the skills of continuing to climb the mountain. AB: It’s true. You need immense resources to fund this sort of litigation against some of the wealthiest corporations in the country, and you also need a deep bench of lawyers and staff with which to prosecute it. Fortunately, Robbins Geller has both. We have invested millions into this litigation already and will see it through to the end - no matter how long that takes. Even with Covid-19. One of our opioid clients, San Francisco, was recently remanded for trial here in SF, and we are moving forward full steam, despite the fact that the city is grappling with coronavirus issues, and despite the shelter-in-place orders. We are all working from home and preparing responses to a full round of dispositive motions which will be

filed next week. This litigation doesn’t stop – even in a global pandemic. LD: Can you tell us a bit about your work with Legal Aid at Work, which is a great nonprofit. I’m sure that’s keeping you busy with the layoffs and furloughs that occurred when the economy was more or less shut down to address the coronavirus. AB: I feel honored to be on the board of Legal Aid at Work. I have enormous respect for the work it does. Their mission is to help low-wage workers, a group among those hardest hit by Covid-19, so there’s perhaps more need now than ever before with the devastation to our economy in recent weeks. The vast majority of the people we serve live paycheckto-paycheck and are without any support network. So for anyone that’s sitting around right now feeling like, “OK, what can I do to help?” a donation to Legal Aid at Work would be a great starting point. LD: You definitely have a passion for making a difference. Were there people who inspired you in that regard, or in other ways? Who were your mentors? AB: In terms of making a difference, first and foremost was my mother; I derive much of my strength from her. And she’s not a lawyer, she was a teacher. She is an artist. But even now, she knows the ins and outs of the opioid litigation. She reads all the articles and sends me those she thinks I may have missed. She provides endless encouragement and, even during quarantine times, she’s reminding me and my brother, “Hey, if quarantine is getting you down, go do something for somebody else.” I draw enormous support as well from my loving husband and children who are 11 and 16. My husband is as solid as they come. We’ve been together for more than 25 years. Litigating at this level with children, and both parents working, is uniquely challenging, but he is a rock, and holds everything together when litigation takes over. And then, of course, there’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg – her unrivaled intellect, and wit, and steadfastness. A true inspiration.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 54

Carol Gilden

David Goldsmith

COHEN MILSTEIN CHICAGO

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Emma Gilmore

Melissa Goodman

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

Maria Ginzburg

Benny Goodman III

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Karma Giulianelli

Ruthanne Gordon

BARTLIT BECK DENVER

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Brendan Glackin

Sathya Gosselin

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lionel Glancy

Louis Gottlieb

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Jeffrey Goddess

Elise Grace

COOCH AND TAYLOR WILMINGTON, DEL.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Marc Godino

Stuart Grant*

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

Jacob Goldberg

Nicholas Gravante

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM JENKINTOWN, PA.

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Salvatore Graziano

Olav Haazen

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Eli Greenstein

Jennifer Duncan Hackett

KESSLER TOPAZ SAN FRANCISCO

ZELLE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joseph Grinstein

Donald Hall

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

Tor Gronborg

Serena Hallowell

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Marc Gross

Sean Handler

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Stanley Grossman

Drew Hansen

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

Michael Grunfeld

Erica Harris

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Joseph Guglielmo

Geoffrey Harrison

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Aundrea Gulley

James Harrod

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Emma Gilmore POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

500

EMMA GILMORE EMMA GILMORE, A PARTNER AT POMERANTZ,

has a practice centered on high-profile class action litigations, including a lead role in the landmark $3B securities settlement against Brazil oil giant Petrobras. In addition to her Lawdragon recognition, she was honored by Law360 as an MVP in Securities Litigation, which is bestowed on no more than six attorneys nationwide. Gilmore is the first woman plaintiffs’ attorney to receive this prestigious award since it was initiated in 2011. She is a graduate of Brooklyn Law School. Lawdragon: Will you talk a bit about your work in the securities class action against Petrobras? Emma Gilmore: I recently played a leading role in the firm’s class action case in the Southern District of New York against Brazil’s largest oil company, Petrobras. In a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz achieved a historic $3B settlement. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade, it is also the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, and the largest settlement achieved by a foreign lead plaintiff. In preparing for the litigation, I traveled to Brazil several times, where I met with the Brazilian federal police and members of the press, gathering evidence against defendants. Back in New York, I drafted a compelling complaint against Petrobras. I deposed several key witnesses, including the former CEO of Petrobras, the whistleblower, and the chief accountant. Deposing the whistleblower was particularly rewarding, as it gave the witness, who was a former executive at Petrobras, a platform to tell her story,

BY ALISON PREECE including how she was threatened at gun point if she dared to expose the fraud. Witnessing this woman’s bravery inspired me even more to do my utmost to bring justice. I also successfully obtained sanctions against a professional objector who challenged the integrity of the settlement, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. LD: What were some of the challenges you faced in successfully representing the plaintiffs in this case? EG: We were up against some of the brightest and most deep-pocketed attorneys from some of the best defense firms. We overcame a formidable defense strategy to reach this blockbuster settlement. Petrobras painted itself as the “victim” of the fraud perpetrated by corrupt executives and politicians. Petrobras’ victimhood argument was widely successful in Brazil with the Brazilian courts and the prosecutors. As a result, in Brazil Petrobras was able to recover hundreds of millions of dollars from companies and individuals that supposedly harmed it. LD: Was there a larger impact on the industry from this matter? EG: Class certification is a critical stage in class action litigation, and defendants appealed the district court’s decision certifying the class. We scored an important victory for investors at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts. As a result, we paved an easier road for defrauded investors to see their claims aggregated and certified in future class actions.

MY STORY IS NOT RUN-OF-THE-MILL. I WAS BORN IN ROMANIA AND MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE REVOLUTION IN 1989. I LEARNED ENGLISH WHILE ENROLLED AT A HIGH SCHOOL IN ARIZONA, WHICH, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WAS NOT AN EASY TASK. PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 58

Anne Hayes Hartman

Jay Himes

CONSTANTINE CANNON SAN FRANCISCO

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Dean Harvey

Derek Ho

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stephen Hasegawa

Susana Cruz Hodge

PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO

LITE DEPALMA NEWARK, N.J.

Michael Hausfeld

Kathryn Hoek

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Eric Havian

Lester Hooker

CONSTANTINE CANNON SAN FRANCISCO

SAXENA WHITE BOCA RATON, FLA.

Lexi Hazam

Shannon Hopkins

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

LEVI & KORSINSKY STAMFORD, CONN.

Christopher Heffelfinger

Lisa Houssiere

BERMAN TABACCO SAN FRANCISCO

MCKOOL SMITH HOUSTON

Richard Heimann*

Matthew Houston

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

GLANCY PRONGAY NEW YORK

Rick Hess

James Hughes

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

EACH CASE PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES…AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE YAHOO LITIGATION, IT IS INTERESTING TO PUZZLE HOW TO APPLY THE SECURITIES LAWS TO OUR EVER-EVOLVING COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE. LD: Will you walk us through another recent case of particular interest? EG: All my cases are interesting, and each brings its own challenges and rewards. But another one high on the list is our securities class action against Yahoo! Inc., in which Pomerantz, as lead counsel, achieved an $80M settlement for the class. I led the litigation with managing partner Jeremy Lieberman. We alleged that Yahoo intentionally misled investors about its cybersecurity practices in the wake of massive data breaches in 2013 and 2014 that compromised the personal information of all three billion Yahoo customers. We further alleged that Yahoo violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose the breaches, which caused a subsequent stock price dive. Litigation related to security breaches was still very new when we filed in 2017, and Pomerantz notably achieved the first significant settlement to date of a securities fraud class action filed in response to a data breach. As part of due diligence, we located critical evidence showing that Yahoo’s management had concurrent knowledge of at least one of the data breaches. Importantly, these records showed that Yahoo’s Board of Directors, including defendant CEO Marissa Mayer, had knowledge of and received repeated updates regarding the breach. In its public filings, Yahoo denied that the CEO knew about the breach, and the CEO’s knowledge was a key issue in the case. After receiving plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, but before the federal district court ruled on the motion, the case settled for $80M. This early and large settlement reflects the strength of our allegations. LD: Why did you pursue a career in the law in the first place? EG: My story is not run-of-the-mill. I was born in Romania and moved to the United States before the revolution in 1989. I learned English while enrolled at a high school in Arizona, which, as you can imagine,

was not an easy task. I had a fascination towards the law ever since I was a little girl, watching my grandfather who was a judge put his robe on and often imitating him by dressing up as a judge around the house. In memory of my grandfather, I decided to pursue a federal clerkship. I was fortunate to clerk for Judge Thomas Platt, former Chief Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Clerking was one of the most rewarding parts of my career, and I will cherish that time for the rest of my life. I started my career at Skadden Arps, in their New York office, before clerking, and eventually joined the plaintiffs’ bar. LD: I understand you devote time to pro bono work. Of what are you particularly proud? EG: I am proud to have been instrumental in securing a unanimous ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional a state law banning cohabiting individuals from adopting children or serving as foster parents. The ruling was a relief for the 1,600-plus children in the state of Arkansas who needed a permanent family. It was a rewarding outcome, and generated significant publicity, including coverage by the Arkansas Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. LD: What keeps you engaged in your law practice now? EG: As I mentioned, each case presents new challenges and I enjoy thinking outside the box to find the solutions. As exemplified by the Yahoo litigation, it is interesting to puzzle how to apply the securities laws to our ever-evolving commercial and social landscape. Also, I recently began a three-year term serving on the New York City Bar Association’s Securities Litigation Committee. In that capacity, I will have the opportunity to help shape law and public policy by, among other things, drafting reports and commenting on legislation. I also counsel institutional investors around the world on how to maximize recoveries on their investments. So there is really never a dull moment.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Nathaniel Palmer REID COLLINS & TSAI (AUSTIN)

NATHANIEL PALMER INJUSTICE ANYWHERE, THE CIVIL RIGHTS leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, is a threat to justice everywhere. It also has an innate talent for kindling resistance in those it touches, as it did with Nate Palmer. A partner at Reid Collins & Tsai in Austin, Texas, Palmer was in high school, just learning to drive, when a well-to-do client destroyed his father’s construction business. “He lost everything,” Palmer recalls. “The family was in turmoil. Throughout the rest of high school, I worked two or more jobs. I played baseball, I studied and ended up as the valedictorian in my class. But I just started grinding away at that point to pay as many of my own expenses as I could. And it crushed my dad.” The experience was a seminal one for Palmer, inﬂuencing his thinking when an acquaintance of his father offered career advice years later. An undergraduate at Wheaton College in Illinois, he decided to take the Law School Admissions Test, or LSAT, and was

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY accepted at the University of Texas, where he earned his juris doctorate in 2008. After a year as an associate at Diamond McCarthy, he joined a core group of young attorneys who left to form Reid Collins. Early on, he played a role in an early lawsuit by the Colombian government accusing Diageo plc and Pernod Ricard SA of helping drug trafﬁckers launder money through alcoholic beverages smuggled into the South American country. The lawsuit had been ﬁled in U.S. District Court, and “it was fascinating to see how the political and legal systems in a foreign country interacted with the U.S. legal system,” Palmer recalls. “It was a complete quagmire to sort through.” Lawdragon: That sounds like great experience to get early in your career. Can we go back a little further than that? Tell me about where you grew up. Were there lawyers in your family? Nate Palmer: I grew up in Fort Worth, Texas, to a very blue-collar family. I didn’t know any lawyers

PHOTO BY: LAURA CROSTA

500

growing up, or really what they did. I had no idea. By the time I was in high school, my dad had gone out on his own and started building residential homes, some of which were “spec” homes. He built one spec home, a man agreed to buy it and my dad bent over backward doing things for him, accommodating the level of detail he wanted. The buyer wanted to pay for lead, but he expected gold. He would ask to have closet shelves torn out, sanded, and the underside painted because they weren’t smooth enough. My dad did all that, and then the guy came back months later and sued him. We obviously didn’t have any money, so my dad hired a lawyer – for the first time in his life – and he got the case dismissed. Then the guy sued my dad again, and his attorney contacted my dad’s lawyer and said, “This man has paid me several hundred thousand dollars, and he told me my mission is to put Mr. Palmer out of business.” My dad had nothing left after the first lawsuit, so he filed for bankruptcy. LD: I’m so sorry. That’s a terrible story. NP: That was my first introduction to the power of the law. I didn’t like that things like that could happen to people. I have a very strong protective instinct, and I believed that’s not the way these things should operate. You shouldn’t be able to just crush people the way that my dad was crushed. He didn’t have the means to fight back, unless an attorney took the case pro bono, but he couldn’t find anyone that would do that. So I went to college, kept playing baseball and working on the side to pay for school. During the summer, I worked with my dad on commercial construction jobs as a carpenter, and I met an acquaintance of my dad’s, a salesman whose wife was a judge. We all started talking, and he asked what I was going to do and I told him I didn’t know. He said, “Let me give you a bit of advice: If I could do it all over again, I’d be an attorney or a veterinarian.” And at that time, I hadn’t taken all the science courses. I had done well in science in high school, but I hadn’t pursued that in college. And I was like, “Well, I can’t be a vet; I don’t want to go back and take all those classes. That’ll take forever. So let’s see what I can do on an LSAT.” So I did; I had the idea from that point on that I would try to protect or help people who got into situations like my dad’s. I knew that being an attorney, I could provide for my family, and provide them with opportunities that I didn’t necessarily have as a kid. LD: So after Wheaton, you went to the University of Texas for law school. Were there professors or people

you met who really helped you process the inclination you already had to help the little guy? NP: There were. One professor who did was a practicing attorney, Mark Perlmutter, who had a seminar class; very, very different from a normal law school class. It focused on trial strategy, how to be an ethical attorney and protect the integrity of the system, protect the integrity of your clients. And how to be a better trial lawyer by using emotion to communicate to a jury. So that’s the one class I can really remember that kind of touched a nerve with me. LD: Tell me about your path to Diamond McCarthy. NP: It’s funny how it all circles back to the same point. Another job that my dad was working on was with a commercial construction company and there was a lawyer named Brent Bull out of Dallas who did construction litigation. One of those jobs had something going on, and my dad told Brent about me and I ended up meeting Brent. My wife, Krissy, and I were about to move to Austin to start law school and he said, “Well, I know a guy down in Austin, he’s a great person. You need to meet him.” And that was Jason Collins. When we moved down here, we became a part of Jason’s small group. And so we got to know Jason and his wife, Lisa, pretty well. Jason had told me, “If you do well your first semester, I’ll see what I can do. I can’t promise anything.” And then I did well my first semester, so I got my first-year clerkship with them that way. So I clerked for Diamond McCarthy, where Jason was at the time, and I clerked for Baker Botts. LD: It’s great you had two different types of firms to compare. NP: My path has always been defined by looking at two things: One is what I want people to say about me when I die. The other is that everywhere I went, I looked at the attorneys who were senior and I said, “Is that where I want to be at that point in my life? Do I respect what they’re doing? Do they have the same values I do? Do they have the same ethics?” And that was really one of the questions I asked. And the Austin office of Diamond McCarthy was Bill Reid, Jason, and Lisa Tsai. I knew Jason had many of the same values. He was a good dad. He spent time with his family. He was a good lawyer; he lived by his morals. And Bill was the same way. Bill was having kids at that point and I could see that he was a good dad. He loved his family and wanted to spend time with them. That’s kind of a unique thing, I think, in the legal world. To me,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 62

Mary Inman

Geoffrey Johnson

CONSTANTINE CANNON SAN FRANCISCO

SCOTT + SCOTT CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO

Philip Iovieno

James Johnson

BOIES SCHILLER ALBANY, N.Y.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

William Isaacson

Kristen Johnson

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

James Jaconette

Megan Jones

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

Geoffrey Jarvis

Jennifer Joost

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

KESSLER TOPAZ SAN FRANCISCO

Mathew Jasinski

Avi Josefson

MOTLEY RICE HARTFORD, CONN.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Rachel Jensen

Kimberly Justice

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

FREED KANNER CONSHOHOCKEN, PA.

Brent Johnson

Michael Kane

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Chad Johnson

Steven Kanner

ROBBINS GELLER NEW YORK

FREED KANNER BANNOCKBURN, ILL.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I’M CURIOUS…I LIKED DIGGING INTO THE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES, LEARNING WHAT THEY DID, AND LEARNING WHO THEY WERE, AND WHAT HAPPENED. family has always been something that’s extremely important. I wanted to find a way to have a career but not sacrifice my family. Because even though we didn’t have money, the one thing my dad always gave me was time. He was our coach in baseball from the time I could read, from when I was little all the way through high school. And he was always there. I knew I wouldn’t be able to do exactly what he did with the career I had chosen. But I wanted to be able to give time to my family and kids. And I could see that in them, and what they modeled in their lives. LD: Tell me some of your recollections of your first cases and how they laid the groundwork for your niche of coming up with innovative legal approaches that have a big impact. NP: I’m curious. I’ve always been curious about things. I liked digging into the different businesses, learning what they did, and learning who they were, and what happened. The earliest one I can remember involved a friend of Bill’s who was a wine merchant and had become involved in a dispute but didn’t have the resources to hire an attorney. So Bill put me on it. I think this was within a month after I got my license. It was awesome. You get great experience that way. I moved for summary judgment, and Bill went with me and let me argue the whole thing. And we won; we got the case tossed. That was the earliest one I can remember where it was much more of a Davidand-Goliath story. And we achieved a good result. LD: And Bill saw you in action, what you were made of. And so I assume you went on to some bigger cases from there. Are there some that stand out to you? NP: There have been a number. Obviously, Credit Suisse is far and away the biggest highlight. That one was so long and intense and so much work, and the result at trial was awesome. LD: Can you walk me through some of your work on that case? NP: Highland Capital had sued CBRE, which handled an appraisal on behalf of Credit Suisse that convinced Highland to participate in the refinancing of the Lake Las Vegas real estate development. The project later

went bankrupt. They were getting close to trial and summary judgment motions when I started getting into the case, and negotiations with Credit Suisse were starting to break down. We were looking at filing a suit against Credit Suisse, and I began to wonder what the credit agreement actually said about the appraisal. What were the requirements? What exactly were they supposed to deliver? I started going through the credit agreement, reading the definitions, piecing together all the different definitions and then going through the contract itself and looking at, “OK, where do they come up? How is all of this fitting together when it comes to the appraisal? What was its role? Why is it there? What are the requirements?” And I realized we might have a breachof-contract claim. I took a copy of the credit agreement that I had highlighted, tabbed, and marked so that I could easily demonstrate my theory and showed it to Bill. When you took the various pieces and put them together, they created an obligation. We told Highland Capital, walked the strategy past some of their business people and from there, I put in the complaint. LD: And it achieved such an amazing result. The Colombian case sounds fascinating, too. What was that like? NP: That was just a crazy experience. Greg Schwegmann and I were the two young guys on that one. Once it moved into discovery, Colombia had to respond to all of these requests and the two of us were sent there for a week at a time for several months, where we went from department to department meeting with officials to discuss the case and discovery-related issues. It was a really fun experience – a crazy experience. We were still pretty young lawyers, and we were sitting there with the head of what was, in effect, their customs department, talking to him, and we would go meet with high-ranking government officials. I hadn’t spent much time with politicians in a close capacity before, and it was fascinating to see how the political and legal systems in a foreign country interacted with the U.S. legal system. And of course, we had to figure out how to get people with such different expectations and understandings of the world to adapt to the U.S. legal system.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 64

David Kaplan

Gregory Keller

SAXENA WHITE SAN DIEGO

SHAHMOON KELLER GREAT NECK, N.Y.

Robert Kaplan

Michael Kellogg

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stacey Kaplan

Cindy Caranella Kelly

KESSLER TOPAZ SAN FRANCISCO

KASOWITZ NEW YORK

Beth Kaswan

Erika Kelton

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO

Elana Katcher

Jeannine Kenney

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA

Reed Kathrein

David Kessler

HAGENS BERMAN BERKELEY, CALIF.

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Carmella Piscopo Keener

Jean Kim

COOCH AND TAYLOR WILMINGTON, DEL.

CONSTANTINE CANNON NEW YORK

Ashley Keller

Phillip Kim

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM NEW YORK

Christopher Keller

Marlon Kimpson

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Laurence King

Robert Kriner Jr.

KAPLAN FOX SAN FRANCISCO

CHIMICLES WILMINGTON, DEL.

Gayle Klein

Nancy Kulesa

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

BLEICHMAR FONTI STAMFORD, CONN.

Jeffrey Kodroff

Susan Kupfer

SPECTOR ROSEMAN PHILADELPHIA

GLANCY PRONGAY BERKELEY, CALIF.

Richard Koffman

Edward Labaton

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Stephen Kohn

Brent Landau

KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO WASHINGTON, D.C.

HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA

Lena Konanova

Chanler Langham

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Sheron Korpus

Laurie Largent

KASOWITZ NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Eduard Korsinsky

Nicole Lavallee

LEVI & KORSINSKY NEW YORK

BERMAN TABACCO SAN FRANCISCO

Marlene Koury

Amanda Lawrence

CONSTANTINE CANNON NEW YORK

SCOTT + SCOTT COLCHESTER, CONN.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Jeroen van Kwawegen BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ (NEW YORK) 66

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

JEROEN VAN KWAWEGEN THE MOST ELITE LAW FIRMS STAY ON TOP

by always getting better, and part of that process over the past decade for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann has been strengthening the European side of its shareholder practice. That effort is led by Jeroen van Kwawegen, who also is co-head of the firm’s Department of Governance that focuses on the conduct of boards and senior executives. Van Kwawegen was a natural choice to guide the European practice: He was born in the Netherlands and practiced in Amsterdam before joining Latham & Watkins in New York. Though he had earlier wanted to work as a prosecutor, his move to Bernstein Litowitz 10 years ago has enabled him to litigate for the public good on behalf of wronged shareholders in the U.S. and abroad. Lawdragon: Let’s start by discussing your current work. Can you describe your role within the firm and the types of matters you tend to focus on? Jeroen van Kwawegen: As the co-head of our Department of Governance, I oversee all active litigation matters involving breaches of fiduciary duty by directors and executives, including in connection with mergers and acquisitions, shareholder voting rights and shareholder activism, and board oversight. I regularly represent shareholders in courts across the country with a track record of success. For example, last year, I led a trial that resulted in a $282M judgment and with one of my other cases realized the largest class recovery in Delaware for the year. As the head of our European client practice, I also advise the firms’ institutional investor clients in Europe on all matters involving shareholder litigation, including securities litigation. LD: Within your substantive focus areas, can you identify any trends or issues that are taking up more of your time these days? JVK: Within the governance area, there has been a noticeable retreat of the courts’ scrutiny of executive and board conduct in connection with third-party transactions. This is true for fiduciary conduct in third-party mergers and in post-transaction valuation matters like appraisals. As a result, corporate fiduciaries are now subject to less judicial scrutiny and accountability, and corporate advisors have fewer tools to act as gatekeepers and rein in executives who contemplate abusing their fiduciary positions for personal gain. This judicial retreat is facilitating

PHOTO BY: PHOTO BY JAY GUNNING / OWL BRIDGE MEDIA

BY JOHN RYAN a transfer of wealth from shareholders to disloyal executives and directors. Despite the judicial headwinds, I love my practice, including going to court and interacting with judges, clients – including funds, banks, asset managers, merger arbs, hedge funds, etc. – and opposing counsel on a variety of securities class actions and governance cases. The law is challenging, but our cases typically involve egregious disloyalty and corporate misconduct, and I believe deeply in the importance of this work. So we will continue to advocate for a rebalancing of the law. Indeed, we have opened an office in Wilmington, Delaware, and I am proud to say that one of the leading corporate litigators in Delaware, Greg Varallo, has joined the firm to head that office and is now one of my partners. It is critical that Delaware’s expert judiciary continues to hear more from shareholder lawyers because the pendulum of Delaware law has swung too far from the protection of basic shareholder rights, including with respect to the extent to which shareholder approval of a merger immunizes disloyal conduct, the judicial invention of a so-called “passive market check,” and the elimination of most shareholder appraisal rights without a legislative mandate. Not engaging with courts on these critical issues would be a disservice to our institutional shareholder clients and the corporations they own. LD: How about the European angle – please discuss the firm’s evolution in terms of representing those types of institutional clients. How much of a focus is this? JVK: Our firm operates on non-negotiable core values, including professional excellence, high ethical standards, and maintaining our and our clients’ reputations with courts, adversaries, and peers. Because of these values, our firm benefited from the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) in 1995, which encouraged institutional investors to retain professional counsel to lead securities class actions. BLB&G quickly became one of the few go-to firms for U.S. institutional investors. After I joined BLB&G and became a litigation partner, the firm asked me to lead our efforts to expand our advice to European institutions while maintaining my case load. Although we were playing catch-up to some early movers, we had a strong foundation and repu-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 68

Arthur Leahy

Radu Lelutiu

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

Mark Lebovitch

Travis Lenkner

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Christopher Lebsock

Emmy Levens

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lewis LeClair

Joseph Levi

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

LEVI & KORSINSKY NEW YORK

Lawrence Lederer

Gregg Levin

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

Sharon Lee

Richard Levine

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

LABATON SUCHAROW WASHINGTON, D.C.

Katie CrosbyLehmann

Roberta Liebenberg

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

FINE KAPLAN PHILADELPHIA

Michael Lehmann

Jeremy Lieberman

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

Sarah Gibbs Leivick

Josh Littlejohn

KASOWITZ NEW YORK

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

tation, and we made a long-term commitment to our European clients. We have been very successful. In my experience, all institutional investors understand and value the importance of such a relationship. It was also helpful that I was born and raised in the Netherlands and practiced as a commercial litigator in Amsterdam before obtaining a J.D. at Columbia Law School and then building my career as a U.S. litigator in New York. Meanwhile, the effects of the financial crisis, corporate scandals at Volkswagen and the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the rising importance of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) principles as part of shareholder mission statements, encouraged European institutional investors to become more active in overseeing litigation. LD: What sparked your interest in becoming a lawyer? Once you became interested, what did you expect to be doing with your career? JVK: I started working in the tulip fields at age 14 for $1 an hour and was the first person in my family to go to college and law school. I went to law school to become a criminal prosecutor. At the time, I was an instructor with the Dutch military police as part of my mandatory military service and I was committed to making the world a little safer and more just. While I was in law school, I had an opportunity to participate in an exchange program with Columbia Law School. This experience broadened my horizons, introduced me to the Socratic method and the active encouragement of critical thinking in American law schools, and allowed me to begin to consider a different, more adventurous life outside the Netherlands. As a prosecutor, I would be bound to the Netherlands. To keep my options open for a different life, I began my training at a respected law firm in Amsterdam. I still have fond memories of my professional mentor, Diederik de Groot, who routinely had me over for dinner with his family while teaching me essential skills and preparing me for my first arguments. I later had a similar experience with the Hon. Huub Willems – the former Chairman of the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals who oversaw proceedings concerning the takeover of ABN AMRO by Barclays, RBS, Santander, and Fortis. He, too, became a close friend and trusted mentor. LD: After you were already practicing in Amsterdam, why did you want to come to America to get your J.D.? What was your career plan at that point? JVK: My desire to make the world a little safer and more just had not lessened when I returned to New

York, so I inquired with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York as to whether Dutch citizens could join. The necessary security clearance made this impossible. Truth be told, student loans would have made this impossible, too. During law school, I could not work on my student visa and only had enough money for two meals a day. After law school, I joined Latham & Watkins and quickly paid off my loans. I was fortunate to find Blair Connelly and Peter Rosen – two litigation partners at L&W who took an interest in me and taught me the basics of being a U.S. litigator. In one of the matters that had the most impact on me, we represented the Westfield Group (the lessee of the shopping mall at the World Trade Center) against numerous insurance carriers who improperly denied coverage and held up payments under the policies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In these matters, we acted on behalf of a wronged plaintiff against corporate actors who acted in bad faith, laying the foundation for my move to BLB&G. LD: What are some unique characteristics about BLB&G that you appreciate and have helped you to be successful? What do you feel is critical to the firm’s continued success? JVK: The combination of the firm’s core values, our nimble and entrepreneurial culture, and the respect we have for everyone in the organization is unique among law firms and has allowed me to be successful. Our firm’s reputation and the commitment of many people at BLB&G who supported me over the years have helped me seize new opportunities while developing my skills and practice, including by advocating for me to do important arguments and to take important depositions, and to be entrepreneurial in developing the European client practice. I am very proud to be a part of our firm and culture. I am also proud that courts, peers, adversaries, and industry observers have recognized my work, and that I am the only European shareholder litigator on Lawdragon’s prestigious list of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America.” But I would not have received this recognition without the support of all the professionals throughout my firm who care first and foremost about our clients and the mission. I stand on the shoulders of many mentors and see it as my role at BLB&G to be a mentor and carry many future mentors on mine. I believe commitment to our people and their growth and success is critical to our culture and continued collective success.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Michael Wernke POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

500

MICHAEL WERNKE MICHAEL J. WERNKE SPENT THE EARLY PART

of his litigation career dipping into several different practice areas before being drawn into the complexities of securities law, first on the defendant side. He now most typically represents classes of investors, and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients based on accounting fraud and other misstatements from companies. He secured a $31M partial settlement connected to the LIBOR rigging investigations, and recently helped set an important precedent regarding compliance disclosures in a case regarding emissions in the auto industry. Wernke is a partner at Pomerantz and a graduate of Harvard Law. Lawdragon: Will you please describe for our readers the focus of your practice? Michael Wernke: I primarily focus on securities class actions but have occasionally been involved in class actions asserting common law fraud or antitrust violations related to price fixing or similar conduct. LD: How did you first become interested in securities litigation? MW: I stumbled into it in a way. Out of law school I, like most of my class as Harvard Law School, went to a big defense firm in New York City. The firm was one of the few that handled high-profile First Amendment cases. I started working on a few such cases as a junior associate. However, I needed to supplement the work I was getting on the First Amendment cases in order to keep my billable hours high enough. So I took on a hodgepodge of other complex commercial litigations, which were abundant at the firm. Fresh out of law school, I didn’t really know the nuts and bolts differences of litigating different types of cases. So I just accepted whatever cases were available. One of the cases I was assigned was a securities fraud class action. A year or so into the case, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, which discussed the concept of causation and damages in securities fraud class actions. That is, how misrepresentations made by a company would “inflate” the company’s stock price and how when the truth was revealed to the market the inflation would come out when the stock price declined. But because a company’s stock price can rise and fall for lots of reasons unrelated to a fraud, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the loss suffered was

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY ALISON PREECE a result of the fraud and not some other non-fraud factor or news. I found the complexity of the analysis fascinating and took on numerous securities cases. As I learned more about this area of law, I found myself agreeing more with the investors’ arguments than the defendant companies’ positions. So, I decided to come to Pomerantz where I could focus exclusively on securities law as well as champion the rights of the little investors against the big corporations. LD: What keeps you excited about this type of work? MW: It’s never boring. Every day I learn something either about securities law or the nature of the business underlying a particular case. The law is always developing so there is always something new to learn or a nuance to the facts of a case that allow for creative thinking and an opportunity to make new law. Also, while the elements of securities fraud remain unchanged, every case involves a different type of company and type of operations. As a result, I have to become an expert in the critical issues underlying the alleged fraud. One day I’m learning about accounting issues, the next I’m learning about how companies manage their pipeline of sales, the next I’m learning about how diesel emission engines work and are tested by the EPA, and the next I’m learning about how an FDA regulated company conducts its clinical trials. LD: Will you talk a bit about the recent case you handled against Fiat Chrysler? MW: This year we settled a case against Fiat Chrysler for $110M, which was 19 percent of the estimated recoverable damages, a much higher than average percentage. The complaint alleged that Fiat Chrysler misled investors when it represented that it was in compliance with vehicle safety and emissions regulations. In fact, Fiat Chrysler improperly slow-played its recall obligations for defective vehicles, waiting too long to announce recalls for certain vehicles and then failing to provide remedies. The company also outfitted certain diesel vehicles with “defeat device” software designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe. Fiat Chrysler concealed this information, as well as the fact that regulators had accused Fiat Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. When the EPA and other regulators publicly accused the company of violating the law and/or levied fines, Fiat Chrysler’s stock price significantly declined.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

IT’S NEVER BORING. ONE DAY I’M LEARNING ABOUT ACCOUNTING ISSUES, THE NEXT I’M LEARNING ABOUT HOW COMPANIES MANAGE THEIR PIPELINE OF SALES, THE NEXT I’M LEARNING ABOUT HOW DIESEL EMISSION ENGINES WORK AND ARE TESTED BY THE EPA, AND THE NEXT I’M LEARNING ABOUT HOW AN FDA REGULATED COMPANY CONDUCTS ITS CLINICAL TRIALS. LD: What were the key challenges of successfully representing the clients in this case? MW: Regarding Fiat Chrysler’s slow-playing of vehicle recalls, the alleged false statement was the company’s representation that it was in “substantial compliance” with relevant regulations. The number of vehicles that the company failed to properly recall was a very small percentage of the total number of Fiat Chrysler vehicles on the road, especially given that a vehicle can remain on the road easily for ten or more years. Similarly, Fiat Chrysler is a multi-national corporation subject to regulations in many countries concerning all kinds of issues. Nevertheless, we were able to convince the court that “substantial compliance” with relevant regulations would be understood by investors to mean substantial compliance as to each regulation, not, for example, full compliance with 99 percent of the regulations and 50 percent compliance with vehicle safety regulations. Especially given the importance of vehicle safety and the U.S. market to its operations. Regarding the NOx emissions issue, the court originally dismissed those allegations for failing to adequately allege that Fiat Chrysler knew its statements were false or misleading when they made them. However, well before the court issued its order dismissing those claims, we had issued FOIA requests to the EPA requesting all communications with Fiat Chrysler concerning their emissions compliance. The documents obtained from those requests showed that the EPA had told Fiat Chrysler management that the EPA believed, although had not come to a ﬁnal conclusion, that Fiat Chrysler was violating the law prior to the company assuring investors that their vehicles did not

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

contain any defeat devices. We were granted leave to amend the complaint with the new information and the court sustained the allegations, determining that it was misleading for the company to assert that they were in compliance when the EPA was actively questioning that compliance. LD: Might the outcome in this case have broader implications for investors, beyond your clients in the matter? MW: The decision is significant because it established that a company professing compliance with regulations must also disclose if their regulators have taken a different position, even if it is not a final determination by the regulator. Prior cases had primarily dealt with final or more formal determinations of violation by the regulator. Here, an email exchange with management about an initial determination was sufficient. This case will make it easier for investors to bring an action when companies don’t provide the full story concerning a critical issue like regulatory compliance. LD: Any advice for current law school students? MW: Try new things. A lot of people enter law school thinking they know exactly the type of law they want to practice despite having little practical information about that area of law and almost no information about other areas of law. And many people end up practicing in an area of law completely different from what they thought when entering law school. The more areas of the law you can be exposed to, whether through taking a variety of courses, talking to practitioners or doing internships, the sooner you will be able to determine the area that’s right for you.

500

Mimi Liu

Neal Manne

MOTLEY RICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

William “Billy” London

Jeanne Markey

FREED KANNER BANNOCKBURN, ILL.

COHEN MILSTEIN PHILADELPHIA

Kyle Lonergan

Annika Martin

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Frederick Lorig

James Robertson Martin

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

ZELLE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jordan Lurie

Scott Martin

POMERANTZ LOS ANGELES

HAUSFELD NEW YORK

Matthew MacCahill

Timothy Mathews

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ HAVERFORD, PA.

Christine Mackintosh

Colette Matzzie

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON, DEL.

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eric Madden

Eric Mayer

REID COLLINS DALLAS

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Robert Manley

Zachary Mazin

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Jason Sultzer SULTZER LAW GROUP (POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y.)

500

JASON SULTZER A FLAIR FOR SELF-EXPRESSION AND THE

ability to attract crowds might have led some college students to a career on the stage. They drew Jason Sultzer down a different path.

As an undergraduate student at The Ohio State University, a campus of some 90,000 students at the time, the New York native joined an informal debate club that held events late at night, with participants weighing in on politics, current events, and highprofile issues of the day. “For whatever reason,” the founding partner of Sultzer Law Group recalls, “I drew the biggest crowds every night. One night, a professor was there. He approached me afterward and said, ‘I don’t know what your plans are after you graduate, but I strongly suggest that you go to law school.’” The instructor’s recommendation didn’t stop there. He proposed that Sultzer explore trial advocacy and litigation specifically because, as he put it, “You have an ability to communicate with people and explain complicated things in a straight forward way.” Sultzer took the professor’s advice to heart, earning his juris doctorate from Ohio Northern and becoming in-house counsel at Owens Corning, a Fortune 500 company, before moving to Wilson Elser and, in 2013, starting his own firm. Lawdragon: Is communicating easily and drawing a crowd natural for you – just part of your personality – or did you have some theatrical training? Do you have any idea where that skill came from? Jason Sultzer: Honestly, I don’t know where it came from or how it happened. I always just had an ability to be myself and talk to people in a way that captured their attention. And I think that’s what helped me connect with a lot of people. LD: That’s definitely a gift. It sounds like you knew as you completed undergrad and applied to law school that you were focused on becoming a trial lawyer. Did you have mentors or experiences in law school that helped nurture that talent or were particularly important in learning the skills you’ve used in your career? JS: There wasn’t one specific person. It was a cumulative group of people, the entire school. I went to a very small law school in Ohio, and it was a very tight-knit group. The professors really cared about

PHOTO BY: JOSH RITCHIE

BY JAMES LANGFORD the students, and they gave us a lot of confidence in terms of what we could do after law school. That was very helpful. Together, they pushed me to the finish line in terms of one, getting me ready to take the bar exam and two, becoming a trial lawyer. I took trial advocacy classes, and won an award in a Moot Court competition. They were grooming me early on to ultimately become not just a litigator, but an actual trial lawyer. LD: Did you go back to New York to clerk during the summer? What was your path to Wilson Elser? JS: I never had an opportunity to do any clerkships because I was working two different jobs in order to pay for school. But I was very fortunate to become inhouse counsel for Owens Corning after I graduated law school. At the time, Owens Corning was involved in lots of different litigations, particularly asbestos cases, so that was my introduction into the mass tort class action arena which probably prepared me for the future better than any clerkship would have. I worked at Owens Corning for about three years until it went bankrupt. Afterward, I went to Wilson Elser, a national law firm, where I became one of the youngest equity partners in the history of the firm and started its class action practice group. I was the youngest chairman of a practice group at that time. I represented large corporations all around the country in all types of litigations. Class actions, product liability cases, commercial litigation: There was a wide, broad range of defense work. And that’s what I did at Wilson Elser, for about 10 years. LD: Impressive. Those are remarkable experiences for a trial lawyer. You really saw law practice from very important, and very different, angles. How did they shape what you do today? JS: Serving as in-house counsel, you learn a wide range of functions. One, is how to manage outside counsel. Two, as a result of the types of litigation Owens Corning was involved in, it helped me learn first-hand about trials and how they work. I worked with some of the top defense and plaintiff attorneys in the country. Just watching them in action back in the late ’90s was a great experience. Better than anything you could really get from a clerkship or anything else. Afterward, Wilson Elser was a fantastic place to con-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 76

Niall McCarthy

Douglas Millen

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

FREED KANNER BANNOCKBURN, ILL.

Christopher McDonald

Daniel Miller

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Heather McElroy

David Mitchell

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Sean McKessy

Paul Moak

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

GRAY REED HOUSTON

Mike McKool

Dan Mogin

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

MOGINRUBIN SAN DIEGO

Brian Melton

Steven Molo

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

Joseph Meltzer

Mark Molumphy

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

Christopher Micheletti

Laddie Montague Jr.

ZELLE SAN FRANCISCO

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Donald Migliori

Kristin Moody

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

BERMAN TABACCO SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

WE TRY CASES THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY, REALLY. WE USUALLY DON’T HAVE POWERPOINTS AND ALL THESE FANCY PRESENTATIONS THAT A LOT OF FIRMS USE TODAY. WE TAKE A BUTCHER-PAPER PAD AND A BLACK MARKER, AND IF WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING, WE’LL JUST DO IT THAT WAY. tinue learning, both on the business side and the trial advocacy side. There were really good people at that firm, high-quality lawyers. Those two experiences, I believe, groomed me to run my own firm today, which has become a nationally recognized firm and one of the fastest growing plaintiffs’ class action firms in the country.

Really, all of our cases are important, so there’s not one that sticks out over another. We work on each one as hard as the other.

LD: Tell me more about that transition. You were having this great career at Wilson Elser and obviously, as you just mentioned, you had seen both sides, plaintiff and defense work. What prompted you to think about becoming a plaintiffs’ lawyer and starting your own ﬁrm?

JS: I wouldn’t say there’s one sweet spot. Every component of a trial is important, from picking the jury, to opening statements and cross-examination. When we prepare for trial, one key thing is developing a theme. We always have a theme during the trial, and we try to stick to that theme. Because no matter what happens in the trial, if you always have your theme and you believe in the theme and you have the facts to back up the theme, that theme could carry the day and give you a pathway to connect with the jurors. And that has worked for us.

JS: Ultimately it is just something that gradually happened over time. Even though the bulk of what we do now in our ﬁrm is plaintiffs’ work, we don’t classify ourselves as plaintiffs’ or defense lawyers. We are trial lawyers who handle a wide range of cases. We still defend companies; we have a very large practice area where we defend companies that are sued or investigated by attorneys general around the country and the Federal Trade Commission. LD: What are some of the cases that you’ve worked on recently that stand out to you? JS: Not one case stands out more than others. The are all equally important to us. We’re involved in a wide range of consumer fraud cases involving food products, dietary supplements, cosmetics, data breach cases, mortgage fraud cases, employment discrimination, and auto defect cases. We also handle signiﬁcant catastrophic personal injury cases where we’re helping families get back on their feet because a loved one may have died in a workplace accident or a car accident. We have had a lot of success in these areas and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of our clients.

LD: When you’re handling a case, is there a particular aspect you consider a sweet spot in terms of your skill set? Opening statements, maybe, or cross-examination or negotiation?

We try cases the old-fashioned way, really. We usually don’t have PowerPoints and all these fancy presentations that a lot of firms use today. We take a butcher-paper pad and a black marker, and if we have to explain something, we’ll just do it that way. We try cases in a very simple and elementary way. I think ultimately, if you can break it down in a very simple way, which requires significant preparation, that gives you the best pathway to win a case. LD: I like that. It’s funny, both from having observed trials and being a juror before, I know there are cases in which firms wouldn’t enter the courtroom without a PowerPoint. Being able to make points with a marker on a piece of paper, though, can be more engaging for jurors. JS: It’s effective. It works. Because sometimes, the technology isn’t great. The PowerPoint can get stuck or you start fumbling around looking for different things and sometimes you lose control of the technol-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 78

Stephen Morrissey

Luke Nikas

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Adam Moskowitz

Sharan Nirmul

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM CORAL GABLES, FLA.

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Anne Marie Murphy

Nanci Nishimura

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

Brian Murray

Harold Nix

GLANCY PRONGAY NEW YORK

NIX PATTERSON LONGVIEW, TEXAS

Matthew Mustokoff

William Norton

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

Ayesha Najam

Walter Noss

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

SCOTT + SCOTT SAN DIEGO

Hae Sung Nam

Ellen Noteware

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

William Narwold

Brian Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Mara

MOTLEY RICE HARTFORD, CONN.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Stephen Neuwirth

Harry Olivar Jr.

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

IN OUR COMMERCIAL LITIGATION PRACTICE, IT’S ALWAYS SATISFYING TO HELP A COMPANY THAT WAS DEFRAUDED, BECAUSE COMPANIES CAN BE VICTIMS OF FRAUD, TOO, OR VICTIMS OF AN UNFAIR CONTRACT. SINCE THE TYPES OF CASES WE HANDLE CAN PUT COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS WE HAVE NO ROOM FOR ERROR. ogy. Jurors don’t want to sit and watch you fumble around trying to get something ready. So our way is very efficient. LD: What do you most enjoy about the clients that you help? JS: What’s great about it is that our practice is very diverse, handling class action cases and catastrophic personal injury cases as well as complex commercial litigation. Mostly, we’re representing consumers who were defrauded in some fashion. Maybe they bought something that didn’t work the way it was supposed to, like a car or a supplement or a type of food. The significant part of that is that in those cases, we’re changing corporate conduct – the way companies advertise or make their products, for example. There’s nothing harder to do than changing the way a company does business. And we’ve been very successful at it, which is satisfying because it means consumers won’t be defrauded in the future. So, we’re helping society and keeping everything on a level playing field. In terms of the catastrophic personal injury cases, there’s nothing better than helping a family. It’s not just getting money back to a family in a settlement. You become part of their family. You’re helping them through very hard times. We talk to our clients every day and help them with all sorts of issues that may pop up. And it’s very rewarding to develop those relationships. We have long-lasting relationships from cases that settled years and years ago, where we’re still very close with our clients and they call us with any kinds of issues that pop up or just to say hello. In our commercial litigation practice, it’s always satisfying to help a company that was defrauded, because companies can be victims of fraud, too, or victims of an unfair contract. Since the types of cases we handle

can put companies out of business we have no room for error in handling any of these cases. And it is very satisfying that we’re able to help really good, solid companies survive and get their businesses back on track. We have great relationships with a number of companies we represented over the years. So that’s always rewarding as well. LD: It sounds like you love what you do. JS: I really do. And we have a great group of lawyers. They’re just really good people who are very smart and everyone’s dedicated to not only the ﬁrm but more importantly to the clients. LD: That’s wonderful. Can we talk about your community activities a little? Especially the ones that are particularly close to your heart? JS: We always are extremely invested in our community, mainly focusing on ways to help children. We just got involved in a new organization that really caught my attention. It’s called Ride to Revive. The group owns various exotic car dealerships in South Florida, and they bring the exotic cars to the track and let terminally ill children ride in them. It’s a little like the Make-A-Wish Foundation, but with exotic cars. LD: That’s so cool. JS: For years, we’ve been involved in an organization called Be Like Coach that helps children throughout the country essentially become better people through sports. So it’s not about the X’s and O’s of sports, it’s about the psychology of sports and how coaches are mentoring and teaching the children through elementary, high school, and college, ultimately making them better people. There’s a real science behind that. Being involved in our communities, even those where we don’t personally live, and helping children is a home run to us.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gustavo Bruckner POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

500

GUSTAVO BRUCKNER Pomerantz has long been known for their work on behalf of shareholders, and partner Gustavo Bruckner has been at the helm of a series of litigation successes as head of the firm’s corporate governance practice. Bruckner has brought cases against financial institutions and corporations in various industries that have shaped the law, and is always working to correct and prevent corporate misconduct and protect the rights of investors. He is a graduate of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Gustavo Bruckner: Pomerantz has earned a reputation as one of the leading law firms devoted to protecting investors’ rights. I head the firm’s Corporate Governance Litigation team. We are committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice good corporate citizenship, and strongly support policies and procedures designed to give shareholders the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. Whenever we learn of corporate misconduct, we devote time and energy to researching and investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by corporate directors to their companies and stockholders and we also consult with our clients on these investigations. We are proud to represent some of the largest institutional investors in the world. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? GB: I have an MBA in Finance and International Business and it was a natural fit to combine my legal and financial backgrounds in this practice area. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying?

BY ALISON PREECE class action securities litigation of all time with more than 300 issuers, thousands of individual defendants and thousands of plaintiffs. It was a massive undertaking and I learned so much about the law in my practice area, and developed relationships that I still maintain now twenty years later. LD: Is there a recent professional move, development or achievement that you wish to discuss? GB: Pomerantz is at the forefront of ferreting out #MeToo movement misconduct. We have been involved in several high-proﬁle public and private efforts at reform and recoveries for investors. We will pursue the board members who turn a blind eye to a “frat boys” culture of sexual discrimination, gender discrimination, gender bias, and hostility. That toxic culture damages a company’s reputation and, more importantly, results in the loss of top female talent. LD: What are the challenges of these cases? GB: You have to do your homework. We face off against the top defense ﬁrms, with vastly larger resources. Our best tools are hard work and tenacity. LD: Have you seen an impact in the industry from the result of these efforts? GB: We understand that our colleagues in the defense bar are encouraging their clients to be more proactive in rooting out and preventing misconduct and harassment. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice? GB: Unfortunately, there is always corporate misconduct. We are seeing a lot of #MeToo movement situations and we are also seeing an effort to give teeth to corporate claw-back policies. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school? What were they and how did they contribute to going to law school?

GB: I love to be able to protect our clients and call out wrongdoing wherever we ﬁnd it. I like to think that we help keep the markets free of manipulation and misconduct. There is no greater satisfaction than knowing we have done our best for our clients, many of whom in turn represent the pension and retirement funds of hard-working civil employees.

GB: I was privileged to have worked for two wellknown legislators and see how impactful their work could be. If laws are drafted imprecisely, they will have unintended consequences.

LD: What would you say is the most interesting case you’ve handled?

LD: Why did you pursue a career in law and how did you chose your law school?

GB: I have handled so many great cases, but early in my career I was privileged to be among the leadership of the IPO securities litigation, which was the largest

GB: I have always known that I wanted to be a lawyer. I have always wanted to help people. I loved that the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School was young and had

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 82

Jennifer Oliver

Nathaniel Palmer

MOGINRUBIN SAN DIEGO

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Lance Oliver

Phyllis Maza Parker

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Meghan S.B. Oliver

Kathy Patrick

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

Steig Olson

C. Cary Patterson

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

NIX PATTERSON TEXARKANA, TEXAS

Johanna Ong

Russell Paul

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Laureen McMillen Ormsbee

Trey Peacock

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

U. Seth Ottensoser

Clifford Pearson

MORGAN & MORGAN NEW YORK

PEARSON SIMON SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF.

Leslie Overton

Michael Pendell

AXINN WASHINGTON, D.C.

MOTLEY RICE HARTFORD, CONN.

Jennifer Pafiti

John Phillips*

POMERANTZ BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

a significant public policy program. Also, they allowed me to complete my studies in two years. I was working for part of my studies and would not have been able to afford another year of school without adding to my significant student debt. LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school? GB: I always assumed I would do some sort of public service. I was awarded the student service award upon graduation for my work on the student government. LD: Was there a course, professor or experience that was particularly memorable or important in what practice you chose? GB: I was fortunate to participate in the Bet Tzedek Clinic, which helps the elderly and disabled obtain their entitlements. I saw first-hand the importance of access to justice. LD: What advice do you have now for law students? GB: Use this time to take advantage of all the opportunities that are available to you. You never know what you will do for the rest of your career, but you certainly have the luxury now of trying different options, and make sure that you give back in your career. It will reward you as well as others. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? GB: I have been blessed at Pomerantz to have Stanley Grossman and Marc Gross – two legends in this bar, and Jeremy Lieberman – a legend in the making – as my colleagues. They have been incredibly generous with their time and sage advice. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? GB: Technology has definitely influenced the practice area. We have more information than ever before available faster than ever before. You have to be able to absorb and digest the most relevant information without drowning in it. LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation or case that you admire, and why? GB: There have been so many that it would be unfair to single anyone out, but I will say that I have the highest regard for those lawyers who zealously advocate on behalf of their clients yet do so in a respectable and civil manner. You do not need to be contentious because you are in an adversarial posture. LD: How do you think others see you as a lawyer?

GB: I hope people see me as forthright, but civil, an outside-the-box problem solver and a mentor to my younger colleagues. LD: What are some of the challenges you face in your current leadership role? GB: There is a lot of “hurry up” and “wait” in litigation; it is a real challenge to try and predict when that may occur, and staff accordingly. LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your practice or firm in the coming months or years? GB: We will spend time at conferences and meet with prospective clients to give them information necessary to protect their investments and comport with best practices, while complying with their fiduciary duties to their members. Pomerantz will continue to host its own conferences and seminars across the United States and the globe to educate institutional investors and ourselves on issues of importance to shareholders. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you try to “sell” about your firm to potential recruits – how is it unique? GB: We are lucky that we have been in so many prominent cases and have a stellar reputation in our practice area. Law candidates find us. We look to hire those applicants with whom we would enjoy spending time and whom we respect for their hard work, intelligence, and collegiality. Our legal strategies benefit from our hiring of the best and the brightest people from a broad array of backgrounds to contribute different points of view, experience, and perspectives. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? GB: I spend quality time with my family. I also play and referee soccer. LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? Please tell us what you find meaningful about your time serving them. GB: I hope I can make an impact in the life of an individual or community. I am a class parent, I am on the Board of Trustees of my kids’ school, I have been working with displaced homeowners in perfecting their FEMA appeals, and I am an arbitrator in the Civil Court, Small Claims division. LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing? GB: Something in the hospitality industry or in government.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Alexandra “Lexie” White SUSMAN GODFREY (HOUSTON)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ALEXANDRA “LEXIE” WHITE YOU

DON’T

KNOW

LEXIE.

Hard to not think about stories discussing the dearth of women trial lawyers while watching her dismantle a court executive while bringing down the discriminatory Harris County cash bail system. Or watching her argue, as lead trial counsel for Chevron, for the removal of a slew of cases to federal court in the massive litigation over destruction of the Gulf ecosystem.

And yes, it’s unfair to hang the gender disparity of courtrooms throughout the U.S. on one lawyer. But you know what? We think she’s up to it. That’s what Steve Susman thought when in her second jury trial he audibled the opening statement to her. She joined Susman Godfrey after graduating top of her class at Louisiana State University Law School in Baton Rouge in 2004. She grew up there and vividly remembers sitting on the bench in her father’s courtroom. She learned to have a big heart and an endless thirst for justice as she watched folks come with their cases and trust in the court system. Fast forward a few decades – and insert the trial lawyering boot camp that is Susman Godfrey – and she is now leading cases with billions hanging in the balance, in courtrooms across the country, and for clients on both sides of the “v.” She loves everything about being a trial lawyer at Susman, the risk, the rewards – and the duel that we call cross-examination. It’s a faceoff based on wits, preparation, and intuition that gives her an opportunity to expose flaws in her opponent’s case in real time, before a judge and often, a jury. A competitive swimmer through college, it’s perhaps not surprising that she relishes the competition – if not a little scary to her how very much she loves it. “I’m 100% confident that I was no good at it, at first,” White says, recalling an early foray into cross-examination during an evidentiary hearing with Neal Manne, the firm’s Houston-based managing partner. “I remember thinking it was so frightening. How do you do this effectively?” The more questioning White handled, however, the more addictive it became. Late last year, during trial in a $20M breach of contract dispute in a D.C. courtroom, she took on a witness who hadn’t been deposed beforehand. Asking the open-ended questions she chose was risky, since she didn’t know what the answers might be, but there was also an upside: The witness wasn’t familiar with her style and didn’t know what to prepare for.

PHOTO BY: FELIX SANCHEZ

BY KATRINA DEWEY

“Particularly if you don’t have a good deposition transcript, where you can structure your cross around impeaching the witness, then it can be challenging,” White says. “But now, it’s a fun challenge to think about how you’re going to build and lay the trap and then lead the witness right into it.” Lawdragon: Tell me a little more about the recent breach of contract case you tried. Lexie White: We were against an $8B hedge fund, and our client was a small, family-owned company. The dispute went to the heart of our client’s business, which depended almost entirely on enforcing contracts like the one our opponents were ignoring. It was very much a bet-the-company case for our side. LD: Sounds like an intriguing case. And one you were passionate about. I do think cross-examination is what some of the greatest trial lawyers are driven by, because that’s where so much of the truth is exposed. There’s tremendous satisfaction in exposing a lie. LW: I can’t get enough of it. It’s the one thing that I can see even in my retirement, that I would almost pay to do. LD: Right? It’s like you’re putting yourself in this duel. Most people who are in a position to lie on the stand, they’ve rehearsed their lies, they’ve set them in stone, in a way, and so you’re the gladiator going in, looking to unravel their story. LW: Exactly. So much fun. Now that I’ve been doing it longer, I’m much more comfortable taking risks. I don’t think I would’ve been able to be as present and in-themoment when I was starting out. I always try to remind the young lawyers that I mentor - no one expects you to be a rock star right out of the gate. It’s a process. And it’s tremendously rewarding to see that progress. LD: What practice area did you get your start in? LW: Patent cases. Those were the cases that I cut my teeth on. I started volunteering for the cases where it appeared that I could get a lot of experience. I could take a lot of depositions, and I could argue at a lot of hearings, and if I mastered the record I would be in a position to assume a leadership role quickly. When I was a baby lawyer, those opportunities were on patent cases. And being in Houston, so many great trial lawyers seemed to be trying patent cases in the Texas federal courts, Marshall and Tyler especially. So that’s where I wanted to be, where I could see fantastic cross-examinations and the kind of lawyering that I wanted to emulate. Learn by

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 example. In every trial I’m in with great lawyers, I love to just take one thing, like, “I love the way you phrased that question. That’s going in my back pocket.” I had so many opportunities to do that when I was just starting out. I’m very grateful. LD: It’s like you learned to practice law from the Marshall, Texas, trial lawyer handbook. LW: The patent docket in Texas was on fire when I started. I remember getting the flyers from the Holiday Inn, in Marshall or Tyler, saying, “We can handle your war room and your ... “ I mean, it was fascinating to me that this whole cottage industry had formed around these cases. When you practiced there, you realized why. The judges were so smart. They had developed a real expertise in how to construe patents for jurors, in how to formulate local rules that moved the cases to trial quickly, that got everybody focused on the triable issues and out of needless discovery fights. It helped me to form good habits and to expect a lot of myself, and my opposing counsel, and the judges, because everyone was at the top of their game in that arena. LD: That really shows your competitive instincts. You knew that if you jumped in the deep end against good lawyers, then you would learn more quickly, and that led you to your patent clients. LW: I benefitted from some lucky breaks. The first client I had, after I handled his initial case as an associate, asked me to take over as first chair in a follow-on case. I felt like I had fallen backwards into my first lead counsel role. We were opposite several of the Big Tech players, which was a career-high in terms of a learning experience, because our opponents could afford to really throw the book at us – and they were great trial lawyers. Eventually we were able to get those cases to trial and turn our client’s six-patent portfolio into more than $70M in licensing revenues. It taught me a ton about how to evaluate risk, how to anticipate what the other side would argue, to weather the setbacks, and how to really gauge our odds of success. LD: And, like many a great Susman partner, you also seem to have a high tolerance for risk. LW: I don’t think I would have said that when I began practicing here. I think that risk tolerance, as opposed to what is maybe just “big talk,” comes with experience. In retrospect, I’m so grateful to have cut my teeth on contingency cases, because it did two things. It allowed me to gain experience beyond what I ever realistically would’ve gotten as a small cog in the large wheel of a huge defense-side docket. I didn’t need multiple levels of permission to take the depositions I took, or to argue the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

hearings I argued, or to make the strategy calls I was making. The client knew that we were staffing the case in a way that made sense, because our interests were aligned. But contingency practice also shaped my habits. Can you imagine if losing a case meant you might not be able to cover your partner draw that year? It brings an energy to your practice that I for one am grateful for. And that type of practice demands efficiency – no task is worth taking the time to even think about unless it’s going to help you win. We don’t write a lot of esoteric research memos on my cases. Now, at least 50 percent of my docket is cases where I’m the defendant. And guess what, I can’t just turn those habits off – nor would I want to. It’s what makes the job fun. I think it’s only by allowing people to gain early experience in every aspect of trial practice, and by forcing them to form good habits aimed at producing good results, that firms can cultivate that risk tolerance, as you say, or really the confidence needed to run the dockets of high stakes cases we at Susman Godfrey are increasingly tapped to lead. LD: Tell me about some of the dockets you are currently handling? LW: I am defending Chevron in more than 40 related lawsuits filed by the state of Louisiana and a handful of coastal parishes and private landowners. The claim in each case is that the oil industry’s dredging and drilling practices going back decades have contributed to the state’s disappearing coastline, which the state’s estimates peg at costing upwards of $50B to restore. I’m also nearing trial as the plaintiff in a group of patent infringement cases pending in Delaware federal court where the dispute relates to core 3G and 4G wireless technologies. LD: What a diverse and interesting docket. Tell me more about the coastal cases? LW: We are in a jurisdictional fight right now, it’s currently pending at the U.S. Fifth Circuit. We need that court to tell us in which forum, state or federal, the cases should be heard. It’s a fabulous docket because my client has taken a leadership role in defending the cases and because all of the lawyers involved are top-notch. My appellate co-counsel with whom I split the removal arguments in the trial court is former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler from Sidley Austin, and my Susman Godfrey trial team includes Eric Mayer and Johnny Carter and Trey Peacock and Ryan Caughey to name a few – and we have terrific local counsel in Mike Phillips from Kean Miller. It’s the dream team of superstar trial lawyers, which is good because the cases are far from over in whichever forum they land. View the full Q&A www.lawdragon. com/2019/10/23/lawyer-limelight-alexandra-lexie-white.

500

Jonathan Pickhardt

Robert Prongay

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

Kit Pierson

John Quinn*

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

Frank Pitre

Daniella Quitt

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

GLANCY PRONGAY NEW YORK

Barbara Podell

Shawn Rabin

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Janine Pollack

Willow Radcliffe

WOLF HALDENSTEIN NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

Nicholas Porritt

Sascha Rand

LEVI & KORSINSKY WASHINGTON, D.C.

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Laura Posner

Brian Ratner

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Warren Postman

Shawn Raymond

KELLER LENKNER WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Bobby Pouya

Barrett Reasoner

PEARSON SIMON SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF.

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Murielle Stevens Walsh POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

500

MURIELLE STEVENS WALSH PARTNER MURIELLE STEVEN WALSH HAS A

unique role at Pomerantz, as she leads some of the firm’s most high-profile cases and also serves as the administrative partner. She is a strong advocate for equal rights and a mentor to women in the early stages of their careers. Lawdragon: How would you describe the mix of work you do within your practice? Murielle Stevens Walsh: The work I do is primarily focused on securities fraud class action litigation, but every so often I take on a class action involving other types of claims. LD: How did you originally become interested in developing this type of practice? MSW: I first learned about the class action mechanism while taking a Corporations class in law school, and I was very interested in the idea that a single individual could file a case on behalf of a class of people against a powerful corporation to remedy misconduct. LD: What particularly about this kind of law do you find professionally satisfying? MSW: It’s rewarding to be in the position to litigate on behalf of aggrieved individuals who would not be able to do so without the availability of the class action procedure. Class actions typically involve situations where the individual damages are too small to justify the expense of bringing an action on behalf of a single person. At the same time, in these cases there are many individuals who have been hurt by the same misconduct by a company, whether it be securities fraud or failure to pay overtime. LD: Of all the work that you have done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? MSW: This is a tough one since I’ve been doing this work for over 20 years. One of my more interesting cases was on behalf of an issuer against the underwriter of its IPO, alleging that the underwriter breached its fiduciary duty to the company by underpricing its IPO. The underwriter was motivated to underprice the shares because it sold them to its most valuable trading clients, who then flipped the stock for incredible profits. At the time, bringing a

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY ALISON PREECE

fiduciary duty claim against an underwriter was a very novel idea. We succeeded in obtaining a ruling from the New York Court of Appeals that it is possible for an underwriter to have a fiduciary duty to its issuer client in the context of a firm-commitment underwriting. That decision helped shaped the law in the favor of market participants. LD: Are there any trends in the type of matters you see keeping you busy these days? MSW: One new trend taking on momentum is how the #MeToo movement is starting to play a role in securities actions. As a result of #MeToo, corporations have been forced to become more vigilant about their executives’ conduct, because investors are taking notice. Recently, cases have been filed alleging that a company failed to disclose sexual misconduct and harassment by its executives. We currently represent plaintiff investors in a class action against the Wynn Resorts, alleging that the company failed to disclose that its founder and CEO, casino mogul Steven Wynn, had been engaging in a pattern of egregious sexual misconduct against the company’s female employees. We’re alleging, among other things, that the company misled investors to believe it was committed to enforcing legal and ethical conduct by its employees, when in fact its senior executives were covering up a pattern of abuse by Steven Wynn. The actionability of a company’s statements about its Code of Conduct is a rather novel issue, although some courts recently have held that such statements can be actionable. My stance is that these issues are very material to shareholders, as evidenced by the steep stock price decline when Wynn’s bad conduct was revealed. The wrongdoing was particularly flagrant and egregious, and I feel that if any case should proceed on these issues, this is the one. LD: What are the key challenges of representing clients in this instance? MSW: It’s always challenging to bring a case on a novel issue of law. But it is so important that lawyers be pioneers and take on these challenging cases; otherwise the law would never evolve. And it needs to evolve – to better protect people as times, beliefs and norms change.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 90

William T. Reid IV

Robert Robbins

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.

Jack Reise

Sharon Robertson

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON, FLA.

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

Julie Goldsmith Reiser

Jeremy Robinson

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Justin Reliford

Valerie Roddy

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

Joe Rice

Robert Roseman

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

SPECTOR ROSEMAN PHILADELPHIA

Rosemary Rivas

Laurence Rosen

LEVI & KORSINSKY SAN FRANCISCO

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM NEW YORK

Robert Rivera Jr.

Hannah Ross

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

John Rizio-Hamilton

Peter Ross

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

BROWNE GEORGE LOS ANGELES

Darren Robbins

Jonathan Rubin

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

MOGINRUBIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Why did you pursue a career in law in the ﬁrst place? MSW: I’ve always wanted to be in the position to right a wrong, and going to law school seemed to be the straightest path to get there. LD: In law school, was there a particular course, professor or experience that was particularly memorable or important regarding the practice that you chose? MSW: There were a couple of courses that stand out: my Corporations course, where I learned about class actions. My professor was engaging and energetic. I also very much enjoyed Antitrust, Tax, Evidence, and Trial Advocacy. LD: What advice do you have now for a current law student? MSW: Think long and hard about whether to attend law school. It’s very expensive and demands a huge commitment of time. Law is a highly demanding career. You really have to want to do it – it’s rewarding, but it’s difﬁcult. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? MSW: A now-retired senior partner at Pomerantz was a mentor to me in the early part of my career and supportive throughout. We worked together on a number of cases. I learned a lot from her and was able to turn to her for guidance. We remain friends today. We need more female attorneys to rise to senior roles in which they can mentor younger women the way my mentor did with me. LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as particularly memorable? MSW: We recently settled a case alleging claims of trespass and nuisance against Niantic, the company that created the Pokémon Go game. Pokemon is an augmented reality game. The way it works is players have to visit virtual Pokestops and catch virtual Pokemon to advance in the game. Turns out Niantic placed these game items on private properties, which resulted in trespass and all kinds of disturbances. So, we brought a class action alleging that Niantic’s actions caused trespass and nuisance. The case was a real trailblazer, because the body of law on trespass to date really has not addressed trespass by virtual objects. The court permitted us to proceed on the claims, and we secured a very favorable settlement for the class.

LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? MSW: I try to be pragmatic and objectively evaluate the facts. I enjoy discovery and seeing what the documents show, building the evidence and making the case. Bad facts make bad law. That’s an old adage but exists for a reason. The legal theory of a case has overarching importance, but if you don’t have the facts to support it you’re dead in the water. LD: There are many high quality firms out there. What do you try to “sell” about your firm to potential recruits? How is it unique? MSW: The fact that we are willing to bring cases involving novel and untested legal theories. I think that really sets us apart from our competitors. LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? MSW: I did political asylum work in the past, representing a native of Togo in his bid for political asylum in the U.S. after he fled his country due to political persecution. It was a lot of work and very stressful, but incredibly rewarding when his application was granted. I’m currently a member and secretary of the board of trustees for a local non-profi t, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Monmouth County – CASA for short. CASA’s volunteers are trained to work on cases involving children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect. These kids are in varying stages of the court process, where the court is trying to decide what’s in their best long-term interest – whether they should stay in foster care, or whether there’s a chance for reunification with the parent that they’d been separated from. Before CASA was founded, courts didn’t have sufficient information about the child’s specific situation to make this critical decision. CASA volunteers fill that void in the system – they gather the facts about the child’s extended family or what other supportive individuals they might have in their lives; and the relevant facts about the child’s circumstances, and make a recommendation to the judge. In many situations CASA volunteers are the only consistent adult presence for the child during this traumatic time. CASA’s work is truly important, and I am honored to be a part of it.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Matthew Tuccillo POMERANTZ (NEW YORK)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

MATTHEW TUCCILLO MATTHEW L. TUCCILLO IS A HEAVYWEIGHT

in plaintiff-side securities class actions, serving as lead counsel on cases surrounding BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill; deceptive marketing for financial products aimed at students; and a closely-watched case against KaloBios Pharmaceuticals and its ousted CEO Martin Shkreli. An experienced litigator who thrives off the complexities of this ever-changing area of the law, Tuccillo graduated from Georgetown University Law Center and has been a partner at Pomerantz since 2013. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the focus of your practice these days? Matthew Tuccillo: At this stage of my career, in my 20th year of practice, I handle virtually 100 percent securities litigation on the plaintiff side. Earlier in my career, I handled consumer, antitrust, wage and hour, employment, and personal injury litigation. I have been exclusively on the plaintiff-side since mid-way through my second year of practice. LD: What first drew you to this type of practice? MT: As a student at Georgetown University Law Center, I took a Mass Torts class, taught by Ken Feinberg, who later served as Special Master overseeing the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund and the Deepwater Horizon Victim Compensation Fund, among other high-profile matters. I was hooked. I found the class action litigation device to be fascinating, innovative, impactful, and challenging. It scratched every itch I had professionally – cerebral, hard-fought litigation, across the country, with far-ranging impacts on people’s lives. Over time, I became increasingly specialized in securities lawsuits, as a matter of professional evolution. LD: You seem to have the same level of enthusiasm for this work as you did back in law school! What keeps you excited about it? MT: No two cases are the same, and no two workdays are the same. I handle every aspect of the securities class actions I oversee – client consultation and retention, factual investigation and private investigator work, insider trading analysis, consultation with economic and subject matter experts, complaint drafting, dispositive motion practice, courtroom argument, e-discovery, alternative dispute resolution, and settlement. My favorite parts are crafting arguments

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY ALISON PREECE in briefs then going toe-to-toe with opposing counsel at oral argument. LD: Can you talk a bit about the Deepwater Horizon litigation? MT: I lead my firm’s litigation by institutional investors seeking to recover investment losses related to BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and Gulf oil spill in 2010. Over the course of seven years (and counting), I have handled briefing and/or argument to defeat three rounds of BP’s motions to dismiss, and other contested motions, involving a myriad of complex legal issues. We convinced Judge Keith Ellison, a Texas federal judge, to retain jurisdiction over these lawsuits – brought by domestic and foreign institutions, pursuing foreign law claims, seeking to recover for losses in foreign-traded stock – the only instance where a U.S. court has done so after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, which barred application of the U.S. federal securities laws to foreign stock transactions. As a result, over 100 public and private pension funds, money management firms, banks, limited partnerships, and investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, and Singapore are pursuing English common law claims, seeking to recover losses in BP’s London-traded common stock, in Texas federal court. I overcame BP’s attempts to extend the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which dismisses U.S. state law claims in deference to U.S. federal law claims under certain circumstances, to our English law claims. For some of the investor plaintiffs, I also succeeded in validating an English law “holder claim,” seeking to recover for losses in stock they continued to hold, rather than purchased anew, in reliance on the alleged fraud – another ruling of first impression. The cases are now in discovery, with summary judgment motions expected this year. Regardless of the future outcomes, this litigation has been among the most interesting and precedent-setting I have had the privilege of handling. I have particularly enjoyed the multi-hour oral arguments in Judge Ellison’s packed courtroom, which have been closely watched by investors and financial and news media.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21| WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 94

Samuel Rudman

Joseph Saveri

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

SAVERI LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

David Rudolph

Sherrie Savett

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Lee Rudy

Maya Saxena

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

SAXENA WHITE BOCA RATON, FLA.

Joseph Russello

Shana Scarlett

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

HAGENS BERMAN BERKELEY, CALIF.

Taline Sahakian

Andrew Schapiro

CONSTANTINE CANNON NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL CHICAGO

Scott Saham

Robert Scheef

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

Hollis Salzman

Irving Scher

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

HAUSFELD NEW YORK

Katie Sammons

Hilary Scherrer

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ex Kano Sams II

Ira Schochet

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Is there a case in your career that stands out as a “favorite” for certain reasons? MT: In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, on which I served as lead counsel, was a favorite. Judge Jed Rakoff’s “rocket docket” approach meant a break-neck pace through pleadings, dispositive motion practice, and discovery. The lawsuit concerned a Canadian company, with NYSE-traded stock, that operated precious metals mines in China. Our case largely hinged on a single-page, Chinese-language mine report obtained by a short seller whose investigator was jailed by the Chinese government. Throughout the course of the litigation, I worked with a mining expert to understand technical mining metrics, do conversion calculations, and compare mining standards in the U.S., Canada, and China so as to illustrate why the company’s SEC filings were false and misleading in light of the Chinese government report. I also relied on China-based investigators, Chinese language translators, and accounting, damages, and market efficiency experts. We mediated the case twice before securing a $14M all-cash settlement fund. LD: Let’s go back and talk about your education. Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law? MT: As an undergraduate at Wesleyan University, I enjoyed my courses of study as a Government major with a focus in international politics. The reading, writing, analysis, discussions, and simulations were good precursors to law school and a career in law. I was also heavily involved in community service efforts as an undergraduate, which were a good launching pad for plaintiff-side legal work and which, generally speaking, is done for the betterment of people. LD: What initially attracted you to a career in the law? MT: A legal career always seemed a good fit based on my personality, competitiveness, work ethic, and drive to make a difference. Despite having no other lawyers in my immediate family, I recall it being floated as a potential path for me ever since I was quite young. It stuck throughout my scholastic career and young adulthood, and I never came across anything more appealing. It suits me. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose Georgetown over another law school? MT: My strategy was simple – apply to all the schools in Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. and attend the best one that accepted me. That was

Georgetown University Law Center. As it turns out, Georgetown was an excellent fi t for me. It had a top-ranked clinical program, and I spent a semester working full-time in a legal clinic called the Institute for Public Representation. It had a top-ranked moot court program, and I both competed on and coached teams. Being in D.C. also afforded me excellent and unique opportunities – I liken studying law in D.C. to studying art history in Florence, Italy, which I did in college. I interned at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, did an in-semester judicial internship, and regularly attended live U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. Georgetown’s class size was also perfect for me – it is the largest U.S. law school by head count, which equates to a smaller college class size like the one I experienced as an undergrad. Georgetown also brought my wife and I together – we met as two fi rstyear law students there – so I would say I got my money’s worth. LD: And of course, you had the fascinating experience of being taught by Ken Feinberg! MT: Without question, the professor and class that had the largest impact on me were Ken Feinberg and the Mass Torts class he taught as an adjunct professor. One particularly memorable experience was representing the Mattaponi tribe in Virginia, as a member of the Georgetown clinic called the Institute for Public Representation, in their effort to block a municipal dam project that had been slated to fl ood ancestral burial grounds. Working closely with the tribe at such an early stage of my legal education was an early illustration of the positive impact of legal work on others. LD: Any advice for current law school students?

MT: I wish someone had told me before law school how valuable my classmates might one day become as professional connections. Instead of viewing them (as I did, to some extent) as competitors – for grades, internships, and jobs – it is far better to view them as potential lifelong professional contacts who might one day refer business or assist in a lateral job move. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer?

MT: I would self-describe as diligent, hard-working, and intensely competitive. My calling cards are dense, well-researched, well-written briefs and a thorough approach to oral argument. I greatly prefer when courts give the parties generous page counts and a long leash at oral argument. I try to carry myself with integrity at all times.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 96

Max Schwartz

Philippe Selendy

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

Steven Schwartz

Daniel Seltz

CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ HAVERFORD, PA.

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Judy Scolnick

Marc Seltzer

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Daryl Scott

Maaren Shah

SCOTT + SCOTT COLCHESTER, CONN.

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

David Scott

Carol Shahmoon

SCOTT + SCOTT COLCHESTER, CONN.

SHAHMOON KELLER GREAT NECK, N.Y.

Jennifer Scullion

Anthony Shapiro

SEEGER WEISS RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

Todd Seaver

Allison Sheedy

BERMAN TABACCO SAN FRANCISCO

CONSTANTINE CANNON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher Seeger

Steven Shepard

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Jennifer Selendy

Manisha Sheth

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Jessica Shinnefield

Elizabeth Smith

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

MOTLEY RICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gerald Silk

Phillip Smith Jr.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Joshua Silverman

Leigh Handelman Smollar

POMERANTZ CHICAGO

Bruce Simon

Thomas Sobol

PEARSON SIMON SAN FRANCISCO

HAGENS BERMAN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Katherine Sinderson

David Sochia

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Linda Singer

Aliki Sofis

MOTLEY RICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

QUINN EMANUEL BOSTON

Steven Singer

Sylvia Sokol

SAXENA WHITE WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

Steven Sklaver

Mark Solomon

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Daniel Small

David Sorensen

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Joshua Bruckerhoff REID COLLINS & TSAI (AUSTIN)

JOSHUA BRUCKERHOFF JOSH BRUCKERHOFF IS SWIFTLY MAKING A

name for himself in the world of ﬁnancial litigation, as he brings fresh eyes and novel theories to the bankruptcy and insolvency space. Most notably to date, he built a crucial argument for FTI Consulting regarding fraudulent transfers that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying an often-used section of the Bankruptcy Code. Bruckerhoff credits the non-traditional billing structure at his ﬁrm, Reid Collins, as fostering collaboration between the attorneys and encouraging outof-the-box thinking across their spectrum of cases. Naturally, the addition of this rising star to our 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers was a no-brainer. Lawdragon: Will you please give our readers an overview of the types of cases you handle?

Josh Bruckerhoff: I appear in federal and state courts across the country representing bankruptcy trustees, offshore liquidators, companies, and hedge funds in litigation against directors and of-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY ALISON PREECE ficers, law firms, banks, auditors, and recipients of fraudulent transfers. The majority of my cases arise out of bankruptcies or offshore liquidations. My firm often gets retained to investigate the cause of the company’s collapse and pursue those responsible. I also devote a significant portion of my practice to bringing legal-malpractice claims. Almost all of my representations are on the plaintiff’s side of the docket and involve some form of contingent or success fee. LD: You recently had an incredible result in the U.S. Supreme Court. Will you talk a bit about that case, the arguments you developed, and what the experience was like? JB: I’d be happy to. One of the greatest achievements in my career so far was developing the arguments that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. When we got the Merit Management case, we crafted arguments that had not been previously

PHOTO BY: LAURA CROSTA

500

advanced by plaintiffs in any prior case concerning application of the “safe harbors” in section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code. The arguments the firm and I developed ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court overruling decades of precedent from numerous circuit courts on an issue that frequently arises in multimillion-dollar, and sometimes multibillion-dollar, fraudulent-transfer cases. Of course, it was also exciting to sit at the counsel table in the Supreme Court. I never expected to have that experience as an attorney. LD: Not many do! Are there any other recent cases of interest that you can tell us about? JB: I recently handled two matters that related to the Mueller investigation. These matters were resolved on a confidential basis prior to any claims being filed. But the cases were incredibly interesting, particularly since one involved a unique federal claim that I have not previously pursued in my practice. LD: What do you enjoy most about your practice? JB: I enjoy the fact that each case presents a different puzzle to solve, particularly when we are assessing why a company collapsed. Moreover, given the complexity of a lot of our cases, we often have the opportunity to “think outside of the box,” and to try new or creative strategies. In fact, some of my and the firm’s notable successes were achieved after other lawyers told our clients they had no claims. The firm also fosters a great collaborative environment. Because our compensation is tied to the success of our cases, as opposed to just hourly fees, everyone at the firm is willing to take time out of their day to strategize on matters, even those that they are not directly working on. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? JB: In what I believe is becoming increasingly rare in the legal world, I have been working with the same set of attorneys since I graduated law school. I joined Bill Reid, Jason Collins, and Lisa Tsai [the founders of Reid Collins & Tsai] in 2007. And I’ve been working with the same core set of attorneys who graduated with me – Nate Palmer, Craig Boneau, and Greg Schwegmann – basically since then as well. The firm and our practice have obviously grown over the years, but we continue to focus on the same type of financial fraud and insolvency cases that drew me to the firm out of law school.

LD: How did you originally decide to come to Reid Collins? JB: When I was in law school, all I really knew was that I wanted to find a firm where I could get experience early in my career and make an actual difference on cases. Of course, because law school is geared toward big firms, it was difficult trying to find a boutique that was the right fit. I am lucky that I found Bill, Jason, and Lisa. They all gave young attorneys an opportunity to meaningfully participate in cases. And because they included me in all aspects of a case from the very beginning of my career, it made the transition from associate to partner easy. I’ve now been practicing with them for 13 years, and I could not imagine working anywhere else. The firm’s cases are interesting, and the work is never dull. And because we work on a success-fee, our interests are aligned with those of clients. But, most importantly, I’ve formed great friendships with the attorneys at the firm, many of who, like myself, have basically been with Reid Collins since its founding. LD: That speaks a lot to the culture there. It sounds like a tight-knit group with a pretty flat structure, which can be a great opportunity for an ambitious young lawyer. JB: I think I owe my growth as an attorney to Lisa and Bill. Lisa taught me the basics of litigation. I was fortunate to start a case with her when I joined the firm and to take that case all the way through trial. I learned from her how to draft and respond to discovery, how to take and defend depositions, how to prepare a case for trial, and everything in between. Perhaps most importantly, she taught me how to be an effective and persuasive writer. Bill was a different kind of mentor, but one who was equally important. It was from him that I learned how to look at the big picture of a case. While this seems like something easy to do in theory, it is much more difficult in practice. It was my experience working with Bill that taught me how to think creatively to solve the major problems in a case, as well as how to focus on the equities and use themes to tell a compelling story. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re not working? JB: I enjoy spending time with my family, both in Austin and traveling around the country. We enjoy being outdoors and are planning on visiting all the major national parks in the United States. I also coach my older daughter’s soccer team and am learning to paint with my younger daughter.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 100

Eugene Spector

Lawrence Sucharow*

SPECTOR ROSEMAN PHILADELPHIA

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Ronnie Seidel Spiegel

Jason Sultzer

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

THE SULTZER LAW GROUP POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y.

Kalpana Srinivasan

Harry Susman

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Courtney Statfeld

Stephen Susman*

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Renae Steiner

Stephen Swedlow

HEINS MILLS MINNEAPOLIS

QUINN EMANUEL CHICAGO

Leslie Stern

Bonny Sweeney

BERMAN TABACCO BOSTON

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

David Straite

Claire Sylvia

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN SAN FRANCISCO

Joel Strauss

Joseph Tabacco Jr.

KAPLAN FOX NEW YORK

BERMAN TABACCO SAN FRANCISCO

Arun Subramanian

Kevin Teruya

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Jordan Thomas

Martin Twersky

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

BERGER MONTAGUE PHILADELPHIA

Marc Topaz

Jonathan Uslaner

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ LOS ANGELES

Catherine Torell

Jeroen van Kwawegen

COHEN MILSTEIN NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Hector Torres

Gregory Varallo

KASOWITZ NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ WILMINGTON, DEL.

Max Tribble

J. Alex Vargas

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

SCOTT + SCOTT NEW YORK

Melissa Troutner

Carol Villegas

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Jennifer Truelove

Michael Wagner

MCKOOL SMITH MARSHALL, TEXAS

KESSLER TOPAZ RADNOR, PA.

Lisa Tsai

David Wales

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Matthew Tuccillo

Genevieve Wallace

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

101

500 102

Murielle Steven Walsh

Joseph White III

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

SAXENA WHITE BOCA RATON, FLA.

Timothy Warren

Adam Wierzbowski

LABATON SUCHAROW CHICAGO

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Daniel Warshaw

K. Craig Wildfang

PEARSON SIMON SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF.

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Mark Wawro

Shawn Williams

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

Melissa Weiner

Steven Williams

PEARSON SIMON MINNEAPOLIS

SAVERI LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

Tamar Weinrib

Mark Willis

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

LABATON SUCHAROW WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stephen Weiss

Mary Jane Wilmoth

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Wernke

Randy Wilson

POMERANTZ NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Alexandra “Lexie” White

Robert Wilson

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

LABATON SUCHAROW WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Adam Wolfson

Steve Zack*

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

BOIES SCHILLER MIAMI

Kara Wolke

Judith Zahid

GLANCY PRONGAY LOS ANGELES

ZELLE SAN FRANCISCO

William Wood

Adam Zapala

MCKOOL SMITH HOUSTON

COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CALIF.

Debra Wyman

Jessica Zeldin

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

ANDREWS & SPRINGER WILMINGTON, DEL.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

103

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC salutes Lawdragonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Leading Plaintiff Lawyers and congratulates our own honorees: Laura Alexander Benjamin Brown Michael Dolce Suzanne Dugan Donna Evans Agnieszka Fryszman Carol Gilden Michael Hancock Anita Hill Brent Johnson Richard Koffman Kalpana Kotagal Leslie Kroeger

Theodore Leopold Emmy Levens Jeanne Markey Betsy Miller Kit Pierson Laura Posner Julie Goldsmith Reiser Sharon Robertson Aniko Schwarcz Joseph Sellers Daniel Small Catherine Torell Christine Webber

500

The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers are the gladiators of all of us. Of each of us when life goes South. And no one needs to be told right now just how far South life has gone, as millions of people worldwide have been exposed to Covid-19, tens of thousands have died, and the global economy has tanked. Nursing homes have proven deadly, cruise lines catastrophic, hospitals a war zone, every interaction a risk. Gary Lesser of Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith is among the 500 lawyers featured here for his work helping consumers in South Florida, like his father and grandfather before him. With his partners, heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s built a referral-only practice that thrives by helping those staring down their worst hour. Lesser remembers a man who called after his daughter was killed in a big-rig accident at 1 a.m. There was an ocean of tears, but also a simple plea: What was the man to do? And Lesser listened, helped the father through the grim practicalities and then achieved a measure of justice. This best of the U.S. plaintiff bar (including Hall of Fame members, who are designated by an asterisk) specialize in representing individuals who have suffered injuries from accidents, pharmaceuticals, civil rights abuse, and other torts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bringing their cases as individual matters as well as in class actions that are increasingly going global. We research top verdicts and settlements, and talk nonstop to lawyers nationwide about whom they admire and would hire to seek justice for a claim that strikes a loved one. Because in 2020, we all need to know a good lawyer.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

105

500

IN GOOD

BY KATRINA DEWEY

CONSCIENCE The tireless team at Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith has earned hundreds of millions of dollars for injured plaintiffs and their families. From left to right: Joseph Landy, Gary Lesser and Michael “Mickey” Smith. 2

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

SOME BOYS DREAM

of becoming astronauts or basketball stars. Gary Lesser dreamed about being a lawyer. As a child, he often visited the firm where his father, Shepard, and his grandfather, Joseph, both worked, a practice that the eldest Lesser founded in 1927. Gary imagined joining his grandfather and father one day. “I’ve always known I would be a lawyer,” he says. “I didn’t know what that meant when I was age 9, but I always wanted to be a lawyer so I could be like Grandpa.” He realized his dream in 1992, joining his father and a part-time secretary just days after driving back to West Palm Beach from Miami, where he had earned his law degree at the University of Miami School of Law. “When I was a kid, I thought I’d work with Grandpa, but I missed him by 10 years,” Lesser recalls. “But I moved into and worked out of what was his office, so I would always joke that I was still working with Grandpa, and I got to work with my father.” That was 28 years ago. Since then, Lesser’s father has retired, Gary has become the managing partner and the family business has added two name partners, Joseph Landy and Michael S. (“Mickey”) Smith. With a roster of 12 lawyers, Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith has offices throughout Florida, in West Palm Beach, Stuart, Wellington, and Boca Raton. Its three named partners have all been recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers in America. The firm’s attorneys have handled numerous multimillion-dollar cases including a $20.8M verdict for spinal injuries suffered in a drunken-driving crash; $4.5M for a trucking accident; and $5.3M for the wrongful death of a young adult. The firm relentlessly pursues every case it accepts – regardless of size. “We don’t advertise,” Landy explains. “We obtain all of our cases by referrals. The fact that our reputation and our results are the basis of how we handle our clients’ cases is what makes me the proudest.” Lawdragon: That’s really impressive. Would you tell me a little more about your backgrounds and how they influenced your careers? Gary, I know you have legal roots. That your father and grandfather were consumer lawyers, too. Gary Lesser: My father and grandfather were lawyers serving their clients and community before any of these awards and honors existed. PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LD: So, they were community lawyers. Gary Lesser: They won a number of awards over the years in recognition for the work that they did, but the law was different back then. Whenever a local businessperson had a problem, they would be able to take care of them. West Palm Beach was a small town back then, so what you did as a lawyer was you went to work, you worked hard, and you were involved in the community. That’s what was expected. LD: Sounds like you had some good role models. Gary Lesser: Most definitely. My grandfather, of course. My father, who was a big believer in, “You do it, and you get it done.” He definitely had a work ethic that I’ve tried to emulate. And my mother. The women of her generation were told to be teachers. So, my mom didn’t go into the family business. She would have been a hell of a lawyer though. And she was very involved in the community. LD: Growing up in West Palm must have been kind of idyllic. Gary Lesser: It was a small town, back then especially. You knew all your neighbors. LD: And what about you, Joe? Joseph Landy: I grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was a blue-collar town with a hard work, resultsdriven mentality. People strived to do their best, because it was the right thing to do, it was what they were hired to do, and they were proud of their work. This upbringing had a significant impact on the way I practice law. I want to be certain that I work harder than defense counsel on every case. Never giving up, and leaving no stone unturned, always leads to the best possible result. LD: And Mickey, you’re from West Virginia, right? Mickey Smith: Yes. It’s really a beautiful state and the people there are friendly and down to earth. That said, it was important to both of my parents that I get a good education and explore all available options. Neither of my parents had the opportunity to attend college, and it was paramount to them that all their children did. All three kids did, in fact, graduate from college, and two of us have additional degrees. LD: Did you always want to be a lawyer? Mickey Smith: From a young age, actually. I thought being a lawyer was the most exciting and fulfilling job a person could have. You get to help people and also have the thrill of courtroom showdowns.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

107

500

500 LD: So, what made you decide to study engineering at Virginia Tech? Does any of that knowledge apply to your practice today? Mickey Smith: A fine lawyer in my hometown gave me a great piece of advice: “Major in something you like and wouldn’t mind making your career if you change your mind and decide law school isn’t for you.” I enjoyed math and science in high school, so I thought engineering would be a good fit. The degree comes in very handy in cases involving accident reconstruction and other technical issues. LD: That’s fascinating. And what played into your decision to go to Duke Law School afterward? Mickey Smith: I knew Duke was a great school with a national reputation. When they offered me a partial scholarship, I was thrilled to accept. Going there had a tremendous impact on me, both personally and professionally. I thought the education I received there was second to none. The professors were wonderful, and I learned so much from my classmates, who came from all over the country and world. On a personal note, my wife – whom I met at Virginia Tech – and I were married in the beautiful Duke Chapel after my first year in law school. We went back and renewed our vows there 30 years to the minute from when we were married. We are both still huge Duke basketball fans. LD: Beautiful. And Gary, you got a taste of civic responsibilities in the student senate at George Washington University. Did you go straight to the University of Miami law school afterward? Gary Lesser: I enjoyed my time in the George Washington University student senate. What I loved about it is that they’re looking for leaders, for doers. And that’s part of the culture of University of Miami School of Law as well. They don’t want people who are just going to sit in the back of the classroom and study. They want to produce excellent lawyers; they want to have lawyers who recognize that they need to be involved in the community and make a difference. LD: Did you have particular courses that you liked at Miami or that prepared you for what you do today? Gary Lesser: Well, when I took torts, that clicked, and that made sense to me. Then I worked for a trial lawyer named Tod Aronovitz. That’s when I really knew that’s what I wanted to do. He was in Miami when I was in law school. I worked for him for two years. He was a fantastic boss and a tremendous lawyer and really taught me a great deal. 108

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: It must have been hard to leave. Gary Lesser: It was difficult, but I was set on going back to West Palm Beach and joining my family firm. What’s funny is that Tod and I have never stopped working together. For about 28 years, we’ve referred cases to each other, we’ve co-counseled cases together, and he is just a wonderful lawyer, good friend and a great person to work with. LD: Were you able to go to court with him and watch him in action while you were in school? Gary Lesser: I was in court with Tod many times. One thing that I learned from Tod is you have to really know your client. You have to have a relationship with your client. You have to communicate. Trust is the basis of the attorney-client relationship. We don’t make or sell products, though we have our experience and our knowledge. Tod always knows his case, knows every aspect and every fact of the case. Sometimes, people try to get by on faking that, but if you don’t have the relationship with your client and you don’t know your case well, what are you really doing? LD: It shows, right? It makes all the difference if you actually care about your client. And Joe, you went to Cardozo Law in New York. What effect did that have on your career? Joseph Landy: I’ve always believed the old adage “actions speak louder than words” is very true. What I found at Cardozo was an academic institution that employed many professors with real world experience. I wanted to learn from those that did it successfully, not just those that taught others how they think things should be done. My contracts professor was the former chief counsel at CBS. My copyright professor helped write portions of the copyright law. Learning from those with real world experiences was invaluable LD: I know you started your law practice on the defense side. When you switched to your current specialty, what positive lessons did you take from your time defending cases? Joseph Landy: Our largest clients were the most litigious carriers, which provided me with significant trial experience starting with my first month on the job. In addition, learning how insurance companies and their attorneys evaluate, defend, litigate, and try cases was tremendous. Knowing how my opponents think allows me to anticipate their moves before they are made and have an opportunity to lessen their blow.

500

There wasn’t a particular case that made me decide to move to plaintiffs’ law. It was more a case of “death by a thousand cuts.” LD: Was there a particular case or event that prompted you to switch sides? Joseph Landy: There were several. As a trial lawyer, I always wanted to win for my client, but by the same token, I frequently had a great deal of sympathy for the plaintiffs and believed that they should win. I obtained defense verdicts in two back-to-back catastrophic injury cases that are still etched in my mind. After the last trial, I could see the middle-aged plaintiff at the end of the hallway trying to get to the elevator while using his walker. Although I won the case, my heart broke for him. Being a plaintiffs’ lawyer means I can help people obtain justice and have a profound impact on their lives. It is an incredibly rewarding job. Another factor was nursing home litigation. I handled nursing home cases all over the State of Florida, and they involved perhaps the most vulnerable portions of our population. Defending nursing homes was emotionally challenging. You can always change your behavior, but you cannot change who you are at your core. It was my inner desire to force nursing homes to put their residents before their profits, as opposed to defending the facilities and allowing their conduct to continue. LD: That’s really inspiring. It’s such an important area of law. Mickey, you started in defense work, too – with more than 100 jury trials before switching sides. What were the most important lessons you learned? Mickey Smith: Preparation, I think, was the critical lesson. That is how cases are won. It helps, of course, if the jury likes you, but if you’re depending on that to get by, you won’t. I learned how insurance companies think and what is – and isn’t – important to them. That helps me tremendously today. I also learned it’s easy to “fall in love with your case” and lose all objectivity. If you thought the case was weak when you first reviewed it, be careful of losing objectivity over time. The jury will be looking at your case with fresh eyes – like you did when you first reviewed it. There wasn’t a particular case that made me decide to move to plaintiffs’ law. It was more a case of “death by a thousand cuts.” One case I won – and shouldn’t have – did make me feel bad, as I would see the plaintiff in the grocery store long after the

case was over. She was clearly hurt. But she was classy enough to never say a cross word to me when she would see me. LD: Those experiences can definitely make you take stock. Is there a particular type of case that moves you the most? Mickey Smith: To me, when a parent loses a child, that is probably the ultimate loss. There is no word in the English language to describe it. If a husband loses his wife, he is a “widower.” A wife is a “widow” if she loses her husband. If a child loses her parents – and think what a huge loss that is – she is an “orphan.” But there is no word in the English language to describe a parent who loses a child. Why? It’s unnatural. It is not supposed to happen. A parent is not supposed to have to bury a child. LD: It must be rewarding to be able to offer any kind of assistance or solace to the survivors when that happens. And I’d think that working with your two best friends helps when you’re handling difficult cases like that. How did the three of you meet? Mickey Smith: Joe Landy and I used to work together, doing defense work. And I think Gary literally knows every single person in our county. I met him early on, once he began practicing, and our friendship makes the practice of law just plain fun. Being a lawyer is very stressful and if you are going to war with your friends, well, what could be better? Unlike a lot of law firms, we don’t have turf wars or ego issues. I love it. I’m proud of our work environment and our morals and ethics. I am proud of our business model, which does not involve billboards or TV ads. I am proud of our entire team, who always put the client first. LD: You guys have definitely built something special. Tell me more about your early years here after getting your law degree, Gary. You must have been inspired every time you walked into your grandfather’s old office. Gary Lesser: Well, I really was. I remember seeing that office as a kid. So, it was interesting sitting and working there as a grownup. LD: Knowing that it was your office now. How did it go for you as you started taking your own cases?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

109

500

500 Gary Lesser: I had to really work to bring in cases. I wanted to do personal injury and trial work, but in the beginning of my legal career, I litigated cases for whoever would hire me.

think that it’s helped me become aligned and have friendships with people who have the same values.

LD: What were some of your ﬁrst signiﬁcant achievements?

LD: It seems like you’ve built a ﬁrm with people who share those values, that allows the group of you to accomplish a lot of good, both in court and in community activities.

Gary Lesser: I’d have to say the ﬁrst one was when I actually was able to have my own legal assistant. In the beginning of my career, it was just me, and I was staying until midnight or 1:00 in the morning, trying to bring in business, doing hole-punching and photocopying. If you don’t have humility, being at work at 1:00 in the morning and doing your own copying and hole-punching will give you humility.

Gary Lesser: You know, I had somebody say to me, “Wow, Gary, the community work is smart. That’s your marketing. You must get a lot of work that way.” The truth is we get nominal work from our community involvement. That’s not why we do it. We have a mission to be involved. Work comes from referrals from clients and lawyers and people in the community who know who we are and what our results are.

LD: Real fast. That fancy law degree doesn’t count for a whole lot in the midnight hours.

LD: The notion of engaging in community activities because you can develop business that way is a foreign concept when you actually just like helping others.

Gary Lesser: No. So, when I was able to actually have a legal assistant, that really felt key. Looking back

When people say that nice guys finish last, I don’t believe that to be true at all. I think you always do the right thing, and it always comes back to you. I think that it’s helped me become aligned and have friendships with people who have the same values. on it now, it’s still a great milestone, because it said, “Wow, this thing that I’m doing is working. It’s going to work out.” The first significant case that I handled was referred to me, actually, by a client whose case I didn’t accept, but I had taken the time to speak to the client and explain why I couldn’t, because there was no insurance. There was no way to make a recovery. A lot of lawyers, once they realize there’s not a case, they do a goodbye letter, and that’s how the client finds out. But I always like to take the time and talk to clients to explain, including when I can’t handle a matter. This time, a client called me and said, “I know you weren’t able to handle my case. Would you mind if I referred someone to you? I really like how you treated me.” And of course, I said, “Sure.” LD: I love when doing the right thing comes back in a positive way. Gary Lesser: When people say that nice guys finish last, I don’t believe that to be true at all. I think you always do the right thing, and it always comes back to you. I think it’s helped me in other ways, too. I 110

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gary Lesser: When we hire lawyers here at our ﬁrm, we tell them, “Go pick three places to be involved. A place to be a leader, a place to be a regular, and a place to be an occasional visitor.” That’s fascinating because they decide where they want to get involved, and six months later, the place where they thought they were going to be an occasional visitor speaks to them: the mission of the charity, the people being helped. LD: That has really become part of your DNA and the ﬁrm’s DNA. Gary Lesser: It has. In terms of community involvement, as much as my grandfather was my role model in so many ways, my mother was my primary role model there. I remember being a little kid and thinking, “Wow, my mom’s having people over at the house again,” for what I thought was a party. It wasn’t a party. My mom was a grassroots recruiter, getting her friends and acquaintances involved. Many of us hear from charities by email or maybe a form or letter that quickly gets thrown away. My mom was a master

500

of taking the time to personally build relationships with people in her life and getting them involved. She was a community leader in many organizations here in town. LD: Nothing substitutes for that personal touch. Can you talk about some of the cases you’ve handled as plaintiffs’ attorneys in Florida? Gary Lesser: Sure. A couple come to mind. The first one was about 15 years ago. The clients who were referred to me had lost their daughter in a car accident: four 15-year-olds in the car. The car crashes into a tree, and everyone dies except for the driver. They had hired an advertising lawyer who wrote a few letters and got a small insurance policy, took their fee, and then stopped communicating with the client. I thought it was a terrible way to treat anybody, but especially parents who lost their 15-year-old daughter. They came to me, and they said, “Gary, nothing is going to bring my daughter back. And if that’s all there is, this small insurance policy, I just would like to know, but I can’t get these people to talk to me anymore.” LD: That’s so sad. Gary Lesser: I told them that I’d get them the answer, that I would litigate the case forward and see if there were any other assets from which to make a recovery. The boy who was driving got only a slap on the wrist. There was no real criminal penalty. At the time, many people would have thought taking the case was a bad business decision, because there appeared to be no source of recovery, but all I could think of is these folks had a lawyer who wasn’t communicating with them, and they just wanted to know the answer. I litigated the case for about a year and was prepared to go to trial. All of a sudden, the driver and his father hired a lawyer. They had been unrepresented previously, and their attorney called and said, “Can we move the trial date? They’d like to try to come up with some money.” Then I said, “No, we can’t move the trial, but we’d be willing to entertain an offer.” I wasn’t going to give up my trial. Ultimately, this father and his son agreed to what ended up being a pretty significant settlement that has to be confidential by the terms of the agreement. Much more than I had expected. My clients had no monetary expectation, and I just wanted to push the case forward to get these folks their answer. That reaffirmed for me that even though we make business decisions all day long, we should simply treat clients well. That’s actually the number one

obligation. Lawyers are supposed to put clients first over everything and everyone, including themselves. LD: That’s a powerful story. Gary Lesser: Now, I’ve handled a lot of other cases over the years. I had a client referred to me whose daughter had been killed in a car accident. He wanted to come in the same day, so my office called me, and I made myself available. He was crying and crying. He didn’t actually come about suing the party at fault. He called a lawyer because he didn’t know what he was supposed to do. It turns out his daughter had been killed at 1:00 a.m. that morning when an 18-wheeler hit the SUV she was in. My jaw dropped inside my head. He was wondering, “Where do I get the body? What do I do?” LD: He needed somebody to tell him how to function. Gary Lesser: Exactly. It was just heartbreaking to the point where I was almost embarrassed to mention, “By the way, this is what I do, the personal injury side.” I decided not to bring it up. So, I sat with him for like an hour while he cried. I answered his questions for him. Then, at the very end, I said, “Listen, my firm actually does these accident cases. That’s what we do.” He says, “I know, I know, I know. Just tell me where to sign. You took time with me.” Nice, nice man. What fascinated me is I’m still in touch with a large number of my clients many years after the fact, including this gentleman. He was a single dad and had raised this young girl all by himself. LD: But you were there for him in his hour of need. Joe, are there cases that show what the work you’re doing now means to you? Joseph Landy: A great example is the George Dahmer case. The Dahmer family were very tightknit, hardworking, loving, salt-of-the-earth people. George was the patriarch of the family and cherished by his wife and children. After a career as a professional wrestler, the Dahmers moved to Florida to spend their golden years. Unfortunately, George developed dementia. Despite having no medical background and a limited education, his wife, Patricia, was able to be George’s fulltime caretaker and keep him free of any injury. After an event where he was aggressive, the police suggested that George be hospitalized for a few days in order to adjust his medications. A few days later, the hospital discharged George to Lake Worth Manor for “shortterm rehabilitation.” A few months later, George was discharged to another facility unable to speak, unable to walk, 32 pounds lighter, dehydrated, and with wounds down to the bone on his coccyx and his heels.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

111

500

500 Florida law requires nursing homes to have insurance but does not require a minimum policy limit. The facility was self-insured for only $10,000 and had gone to great lengths to be asset protected. Moreover, any case would clearly take years to resolve and force the attorney to incur six ﬁgures in costs. We agreed to accept the case with the primary goal of forcing the facility to close its doors or change the manner in which it conducted its business. Throughout the case, the facility mistakenly believed that no lawyer would incur the costs and time to proceed to trial as, if the nursing home lost, it would just ﬁle for bankruptcy.

deceitful. It provides the typical children with a true appreciation for their autistic peers, makes them empathetic and more kind themselves, and will provide them with an outlook of the special needs population that will remain with them for the rest of their lives.

We proceeded to trial and obtained a seven-figure verdict. After a lengthy appeal, which we won, I received a call from a prominent bankruptcy lawyer who told me if the case did not settle, they would file for bankruptcy the next day. As we refused to negotiate, a check for the amount of the verdict, costs, and interest was delivered to my office the next day. This victory provided justice for my clients and also gave them closure. Moreover, it saved countless lives. The nursing home had a one-star rating from the date it opened its doors until the date of the verdict. While handling that case, I received calls from other families who wanted to proceed with cases against this nursing home as their loved ones had been injured and others had died. Following payment of the verdict, the facility has routinely maintained a four- to fivestar rating. Clearly, they made a business decision to invest money into providing better care for their residents instead of paying large verdicts, and that has prevented countess residents from suffering needless injuries and, for some, saved their lives.

Mickey Smith: Many skydivers start because of the thrill or the adrenaline rush. As you gain more experience, the nerves leave, and you are then able to take in the beauty. My wife and I did it for many years, and we basically just burnt out on doing it. I’ll tell you, though, as thrilling as skydiving is, it does not even come close to starting a jury trial.

LD: What do you enjoy most about your practice? Joseph Landy: The ability to help people, the ability to take down a corporate bully, and being able to work with my two amazing partners. I’ve also been on the boards of numerous charitable and legal organizations, and I’m currently the president of the board of Oakstone Academy Palm Beach. It’s a unique school, where each classroom has approximately eight children: six “typical” and one to two with autism. The typical children often are from the poorest sections of the county. The school is nothing short of magical: The children with autism mimic the behaviors of their typical peers, instead of the behaviors of other autistic students as in a traditional special needs classroom. The typical children learn that although the children with autism are different, that there is a reason they are “special.” They are kind and do not know how to be mean, jealous, or 112

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: What about you, Mickey? Mickey Smith: I’m on the boards of five nonprofits and it definitely means a lot to me. I’m particularly moved by organizations that help kids or seniors. LD: And I’ve heard that you have some amazing hobbies: You’ve done more than 2,800 skydives?

My wife and I also love to travel. We have been to every continent. Everywhere we have been is special for different reasons, but our favorite destination is easy – it’s always the next one. I think travel deﬁnitely helps in practicing law, as you get exposed to different people and different ideas. And, let’s face it, that is what law is all about, people and ideas. LD: Are there any future lawyers among your children? Gary Lesser: I have three daughters, and I often wonder if one of them will join the ﬁrm and become the fourth generation of the family here. LD: That would be fantastic. Do you think it could happen? Gary Lesser: We’ll see. My youngest, Rebecca, has talked about being a lawyer to help people since she could put the words together. My eldest daughter, Lillian, who’s in her senior year of college has been accepted for admission at a number of law schools. My middle daughter Josie wants to go to medical school, so we will see! LD: Where did she get accepted? Gary Lesser: University of Miami School of Law, and a few other law schools, but obviously I’m rooting for UM Law School. LD: How perfect. Gary Lesser: I was thrilled for her. Plus, getting accepted, whether it’s for law school or college, it takes the pressure off. Everything after that is a bonus. You’re like, “Oh, thank God I’m in.”

CONGRATULATIONS to Lieff Cabraserâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lawdragon 500 Top Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers

Elizabeth J. Cabraser

Richard M. Heimann

Steven Fineman

Mark P. Chalos

Rachel Geman

Lexi J. Hazam

Paulina do Amaral

Annika K. Martin

SAN FRANCISCO NEW YORK NASHVILLE lieffcabraser.com

500 114

Terry Abeyta

Edward Allen

ABEYTA-NELSON YAKIMA, WASH.

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN FREDERICKBURG, VA.

Michael Abourezk

Greg Allen

ABOUREZK & GARCIA RAPID CITY, S.D.

BEASLEY ALLEN MONGTOMERY, ALA.

Mark Abramson

W. Coleman Allen Jr.

ABRAMSON BROWN MANCHESTER, N.H.

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

Marijo Adimey

Parvin Aminolroaya

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

Esteban Aguilar Sr.

Robert Ammons

AGUILAR & AGUILAR ALBUQUERQUE

AMMONS LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Wylie Aitken*

Jennie Lee Anderson

AITKEN AITKEN SANTA ANA, CALIF.

ANDRUS ANDERSON SAN FRANCISCO

Truitt Akin IV

Patricia Anderson

AKINMEARS HOUSTON

LUVERA LAW FIRM SEATTLE

Charla Aldous

Lori Andrus

ALDOUS/WALKER DALLAS

ANDRUS ANDERSON SAN FRANCISCO

Mary Alexander

Kurt Arnold

ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Rosemarie Arnold

Theodore Babbitt

LAW OFFICE OF ROSEMARIE ARNOLD FORT LEE, N.J.

BABBITT JOHNSON WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Lisa Arrowood

J. Kyle Bachus

ARROWOOD BOSTON

BACHUS & SCHANKER DENVER

Richard Arsenault

Khaldoun Baghdadi

NEBLETT BEARD ALEXANDRIA, LA.

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

William Artz

Blake Bailey

ARTZ LAW FIRM TYSONS CORNER, VA.

BAILEY LAW FIRM TYLER, TEXAS

Jennifer Ashley

Jan Baisch

SALVI SCHOSTOK WAUKEGAN, ILL.

LAW OFFICE OF JAN BAISCH PORTLAND, ORE.

Christopher Aumais

Daniel Balaban

GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES

BALABAN SPIELBERGER LOS ANGELES

Lance Avera

Beth Baldinger

AVERA & SMITH GAINESVILLE, FLA.

MAZIE SLATER ROSELAND, N.J.

Mark Avera

Marsha Barr-Fernandez

AVERA & SMITH GAINESVILLE, FLA.

HEIMBERG BARR LOS ANGELES

Joseph Awad

David “Chip” Barry Jr.

SILBERSTEIN AWAD GARDEN CITY, N.Y.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

115

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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

117

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

118

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

119

500 120

James Bartimus

Leonard Bennett

BARTIMUS FRICKLETON LEAWOOD, KAN.

CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES NEWPORT NEWS, VA.

Vincent Bartolotta

David Benninger

THORSNES BARTOLOTTA SAN DIEGO

LUVERA LAW FIRM SEATTLE

Michael Baum

Steve Berman

BAUM HEDLUND LOS ANGELES

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

Jere Beasley*

Nadeem Bezar

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

KLINE & SPECTER PHILADELPHIA

Michael Becker

Michael Bidart

BECKER LAW FIRM CLEVELAND

SHERNOFF BIDART CLAREMONT, CALIF.

H. Briggs Bedigian

Andy Birchfield

GILMAN & BEDIGIAN TIMONIUM, MD.

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Paul Bekman

Walter Bithell

BEKMAN MARDER BALTIMORE

BITHELL LAW BOISE, IDAHO

Carmen Belefonte

Janet Ward Black

SALTZ MONGELUZZI MEDIA, PA.

WARD BLACK LAW GREENSBORO, N.C.

Keith Belt Jr.

Roy Black*

BELT & BRUNER BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

BLACK SREBNICK MIAMI

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

121

500

Gayle Blatt

Will Bond

CASEY GERRY SAN DIEGO

MCMATH WOODS LITTLE ROCK, ARK.

Alexander Blewett

Shoshana Bookson

HOYT & BLEWETT GREAT FALLS, MONT.

TOLMAGE PESKIN NEW YORK

Roy Black

LaBarron Boone

BLACK SREBNICK MIAMI

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Michael Block

Carole Bos

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

BOS & GLAZIER GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

Jeffrey Bloom

David Bossart

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

BOSSART LAW FIRM FARGO, N.D.

Lisa Blue

James Bostwick

BARON & BLUE DALLAS

BOSTWICK & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO

Patricia Bobb

Raymond Boucher

PATRICIA BOBB CHICAGO

BOUCHER LLP WOODLAND HILLS, CALIF.

Mark Bocci

Beverly Bove

MARK R. BOCCI LAKE OSWEGO, ORE.

LAW OFFICE OF BEVERLY BOVE WILMINGTON

Yvette Boisclair

Kevin Boyle

MANDELL BOISCLAIR PROVIDENCE, R.I.

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) 122

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | 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 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

123

500

Robert Clifford CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES (CHICAGO)

124

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ROBERT CLIFFORD A RENOWNED PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER

in Chicago, Robert A. Clifford is a paragon of integrity with a work ethic and value system that brings a heightened standard to the practice of law. He cares deeply about his clients, who include such cultural idols as Rachel Barton Pine, the celebrated violinist who was struck by a Chicago commuter train, as well as victims of fires and other accidents who suffered serious injuries or even lost their lives due to faulty systems. His work has led to a fortified 911 response system in Chicago, new standards for college resident assistants, and much-needed updates to building codes in the city. Clifford also has a long history of setting new standards in the aviation industry through his work on behalf of plane accident victims, including his current work as lead counsel in litigation surrounding the crash of the Boeing 737 Max 8 jet in Ethiopia last year. His tireless efforts on behalf of his clients have resulted in verdicts and settlements totaling billions of dollars over the years. He is founder and senior partner at Clifford Law Offices. Lawdragon: Will you please describe for our readers the work you do for injured plaintiffs? Robert Clifford: My entire career has been working in the area of personal injury and wrongful death law on behalf of plaintiffs. My practice is varied, from commercial and general aviation and helicopter crash cases to medical malpractice, premises liability to product liability actions. I have been very privileged to have the opportunity to work on behalf of people in what may be their greatest time of need in their lives. Guiding them for what may be several years to achieve justice on behalf of them and their families has been a journey that I have enjoyed because I know that I have helped people and changed lives for the better along the way. LD: What initially drew you to a personal injury practice? RC: I was a first-year law student at DePaul University College of Law and we had a speaker in my torts class: Philip Corboy. He was then the dean of personal injury law in Chicago. His work, his work ethic, his passion – they all drove me to immediately make the decision that this was the area of law in which I wanted to concentrate. Following the class, I looked him up in the phone book (they existed in those days),

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

BY ALISON PREECE and I then went to his downtown office where he said he was headed. Telling the receptionist that I had one more question for Mr. Corboy, she allowed me in and I asked him, “How does a guy like me get a job with a lawyer like you?” Mr. Corboy was so impressed with my boldness and my fortitude that he hired me as a law clerk after checking my credentials with the Dean of the Law School, and I’ve never turned back. I learned from the master and have gone on to form my own law firm and mentor others in the area of tort law. LD: You’ve been practicing this type of law for quite some time now. What keeps you passionate about it? RC: I come in to work every day for over 40 years as excited as I did my first day. I am very fortunate to view my work as a learning experience. Whether it be figuring out what went wrong with an airplane when it crashed or how a baby was brain damaged at birth, every day is different. I learn something every day. It is a profession where you are growing and learning. That may not be true of every profession and even of every lawyer. That is what makes it so exciting to represent personal injury and wrongful death clients. Righting a wrong is something that gives me great satisfaction. LD: Looking back at all the work you’ve done in your career, is there one case that stands out as particularly memorable or interesting? RC: Because I have had the privilege of handling many complex, high-profile cases, it is very difficult to decide exactly one case that was the most interesting. Certainly, trials are the favorite part of my work. One trial that stands out in my mind is that of Rachel Barton, an internationally acclaimed violinist whose instrument and other bags were trapped in the sliding doors as she exited a commuter train. The train took off, dragging her for some 300 feet until she finally freed herself, but was swept under the train. Her injuries were so severe that it was considered a miracle that she lived, and yet another miracle when she could still play the violin as a virtuoso. Of course, her career has been somewhat altered or compromised, but she has gone on to still have an incredible career, marry, and have a daughter who also is a home-schooled musical prodigy. Following a month-long trial that was front-page news in Chicago every day, we received a $29.6M verdict

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

125

500

I LEARN SOMETHING EVERY DAY. IT IS A PROFESSION WHERE YOU ARE GROWING AND LEARNING. THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE OF EVERY PROFESSION AND EVEN OF EVERY LAWYER. THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT SO EXCITING TO REPRESENT PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH CLIENTS. RIGHTING A WRONG IS SOMETHING THAT GIVES ME GREAT SATISFACTION. that – after appeals were exhausted – amounted to $35M. The trial was exhausting. The presentation of the case was systematic. The appeal to the jury was unique. In the end, the verdict allowed our client to have the necessary care, surgeries, prosthetics, and household accommodations to make her life bearable. She was able to resume her musical career, which has given her the strength to go on, providing beautiful music to thousands. The law was on her side. Justice was on her side. And she so appreciated our efforts on her behalf. LD: That’s a beautiful story, and an incredible result. One of many in your long career, I’m sure! RC: My life has been filled with memorable cases: the scaffolding collapse of the John Hancock Center; the fire at the Cook County Administration Building; the fire that took the life of a young woman whom firemen were unable to locate that changed the 911 response system in Chicago; the young Northwestern student who died from an alcohol overdose when his RA failed to check on him that started a Red Watch Band program at other universities around the country to save lives of those who drink; the porch collapse of a Chicago residence that forced city officials to re-examine their ordinances and building codes; airline crashes that changed rules and regulations. The cases go on and on, cases that made a difference, not only in the lives of those we represented, but also to make the world safer for everyone else through their sacrifices. LD: I imagine you hold many professional recognitions, given your track record and the broad impact your cases have had. RC: I really am not one to accept awards, despite my being privileged to be asked on a regular basis. I did,

126

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

however, agree last year to receive the Distinguished Award for Excellence by the Illinois Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the Illinois State Bar Association. The object of the evening is to raise money to help lawyers in need, those who might fall on hard times or the sudden death of a lawyer that dramatically and unexpectedly impacts a family. I was humbled by the hundreds of lawyers who poured their hearts and souls into the project. It was a record number of attendees and a record amount that was raised. I feel that if lending my name helps others, then I will do so because it isn’t about collecting awards. It’s about if you leave this world a better place. LD: That’s so true, and I think you can rest assured that you truly have. What would you say is a major or significant change in how you practice now compared to when you started? RC: Technology has changed the practice of law over the years. Discovery has become more complex with the creation of more documents, and the everincreasing need to learn how to search for Electronically Stored Information, ESI. The type of work we do generally involves multiple defendants or complex issues. This means multiple experts in search of information in documents that go far back in time to figure out how the problem or negligence occurred. That means perhaps even millions of pages of documents must be closely examined with technologyassisted review techniques to figure out exactly what is needed at trial, what a jury needs to know to come to the truth. There are no easy answers and the lawyers at my firm know that they must be at the top of their game every minute. They must be creative in their approach to every case. They must look for every angle that will

500

give our client full restitution. They must continue to educate themselves in the use of new methods and technologies. That certainly hasn’t changed over the years, but the amount of work to get that same justice appears to have multiplied given the number of documents that appear to be created so easily with emails, texts, internal communications, posts on social media, and other avenues that simply weren’t there before. The practice of law in general has become more complex with the advent of technology. That will only grow as we see everything from authenticating fake discovery to cloud-based storage to biometric identification. Keeping up with the high-tech world has had an impact on the law. It’s important that every lawyer try to keep on top of it because, in the long run, it will help you and your client by knowing as much as you can about it. I try to be a sponge. The use of electronics in the courtroom for presentations is very important to a winning strategy. LD: What are some of the recent cases you’ve handled, or are currently handling? RC: Obtaining a $101M verdict on behalf of a baby born brain damaged was most heartwarming. And, just before that was a case we tried for a young woman who received $35M after a truck dragged her for blocks causing horrible injuries. But being named lead counsel in the litigation involving the March 10, 2019, crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 in Ethiopia has had the greatest impact on our firm in recent months. Of the 157 people aboard that ill-fated flight, hailing from 35 different countries, we represent 68 victims in a tragedy that has bound them together in a fight against a major corporation to keep that plane grounded until all safety issues have been fully vetted. Their dedication to not witnessing a third crash is a testament that their loved ones did not die in vain. LD: I know the Boeing case is pending, but can you talk a bit about the challenges you face there? RC: Being lead counsel for victims from 35 different countries in a consolidated matter in federal district court in Chicago has proven to be particularly challenging. Making sure that everyone stays up to date on what is happening in court. Keeping track of all the clients’ needs whether that requires interpreters or not. Giving each client an individual voice in a tragedy that impacted so many – and really the flying public – is a huge responsibility. I accept these challenges and feel that I have worked my entire career to ready myself for being lead counsel in a case that

could change the way planes are certified, the way airline manufacturers do business, and the way that countries view the importance of safety in the world. LD: This case has the potential to have a major impact on the aviation industry. Has that already started to happen? RC: It is yet to be seen what the full impact of the case will be in this matter. So far, the 737 Max 8 has been grounded for nearly a year – the longest that any aircraft has ever been grounded – while various certification agencies around the world examine what went wrong with the plane. The flying public deserves that type of scrutiny before the plane is allowed to fly again. LD: Absolutely. They need to be held accountable. RC: Yes, accountability and transparency are owed to the 346 people who died in two crashes. It is owed to my clients and all of those who became victims of the Boeing crash in Ethiopia. To witness the pain and suffering of each of my clients from the loss of their loved ones is very difficult, but they are looking for their lawyers to fight for them in court every step of the way. And that is exactly what we will do until justice is achieved for everyone. LD: It sounds like this case has really made an impact on you personally, as well. RC: Visiting the crash site outside of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was a memorable experience. Re-creating a plane crash for jurors is a difficult thing to do in court because you can never quite capture the horror of it all. We create three-dimensional videos for jurors to witness what we believe occurred, given information from experts, the black boxes, and other evidence we accumulate. But nothing truly can capture the scene of the crash site itself. That has become the burial ground for 157 people who died when that plane was entombed in the earth at a high rate of speed. Certainly, jurors cannot visit the scene, but witnessing that crash scene and the sorrow of the families who must live with knowing that’s how their loved ones’ lives ended is a very memorable moment in my career. LD: Let’s switch gears, if we may, to your education and early work as a lawyer. Did your experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law? RC: I attended DePaul University as an undergraduate and then, while always working, applied and was accepted directly into DePaul University College

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

127

500 128

Leo Boyle

E. Drew Britcher

MEEHAN BOYLE BOSTON

BRITCHER LEONE GLEN ROCK, N.J.

Bill Bradley

Anne Brockland

BRADLEY DRENDEL RENO, NEV.

CASEY DEVOTI ST. LOUIS

Margaret Moses Branch

Alisa Brodkowitz

BRANCH LAW FIRM ALBUQUERQUE

FRIEDMAN RUBIN SEATTLE

Thomas Brandi

Quentin Brogdon

BRANDI LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

CRAIN BROGDON DALLAS

Debbie Dudley Branson

Bruce Broillet*

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK BRANSON DALLAS

GREENE BROILLET SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

Frank Branson

Chip Brooker

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK BRANSON DALLAS

BROOKER LAW DALLAS

Gregory Breedlove

Joseph M. “Buddy” Brown

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

Jeffrey Breit

Thomas Brown

BREIT DRESCHER RICHMOND, VA.

THE BROWN LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Ralph Brindley

Toby Brown

LUVERA LAW FIRM SEATTLE

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THE GREATEST CHALLENGE IN THE FUTURE OF PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION IS TECHNOLOGY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DISCOVERY TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR LAWYERS TO BE TECH-SAVVY IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED COMPETENT. of Law. I always had an interest in history, political science and writing. I put all those interests to use in law school. As a young student, I was a precinct worker in Chicago handing out fliers to voters in my ward. I think deep down I always knew that I wanted to be a lawyer even though no one in my family had ever graduated from college. I was driven by a thirst for knowing more, learning more and making a mark in the area of law. I feel that as my career continues, I still intend to do that until there is no more breath left in me. LD: What other jobs did you have as a young person? And did any of them have an impact on your legal career? RC: My first job as a teenager was at a lumber yard where I learned the meaning of hard work. Physical work. Every day when I walked to work I passed a Great Lakes rope factory and above the employee entrance there was a sign that read, “He who weaves this rope weaves his conscience into every rope twine because so many lives depend thereon.” I have used that statement in every closing argument of every trial so that jurors understand the importance of their duty. They need to know that if they weave their conscience into their decisions, they will get it right for the right reasons LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose DePaul for law school? RC: Because of my need to work my way through college and law school, I chose a local school in Chicago that allowed me to earn a living while attending higher education. I came to learn that DePaul is a wonderful, dedicated group of academics who are willing to help every student be successful, and I have tried to give back to the school for everything that it has given me. I applied to one undergraduate school, DePaul, and one law school, DePaul. Those were easy decisions to make because they allowed me to work part-time to fund my education.

LD: Were there any professors there who were particularly memorable or important in what practice you chose? RC: I believe that Professor Terrence Kiley, who is now deceased, had an impact on me as my tort professor. He was kind, yet firm. He was intelligent and knew how to share that intelligence through the Socratic method. He made the class interesting. He affirmed my decision that tort law was the right place for me. LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation or case that you admire, and why? RC: I have had many formidable opponents. C. Barry Montgomery was a very savvy lawyer in the month-long trial of Rachel Barton, the violinist. Barry was among the best defense lawyers ever to hit the courtroom. He’s very polished, smart, crafty, and likeable. Another opponent who I have faced off against several times is Dan Boho of Hinshaw Culbertson in Chicago. What stands out to me about Dan is that he is always professional. He fights a good fight, but he is civil. He sets an example for all lawyers in the courtroom that, although we may be doing battle, this is still a courtroom and we aren’t fighting to the death. He is a gentleman and is always prepared. Every lawyer can learn something from Barry Montgomery and Dan Boho. LD: I’d love to talk a bit about your firm now, if we may. You hung your shingle in 1984, correct? RC: Yes, and it was a bold decision at the time! I was a young lawyer with a young wife and two small children, but I have never looked back. It was the best move I ever made. The firm has grown to 25 lawyers and I have found that surrounding myself with intelligent, hard-working people is the key to success. LD: What are some of the challenges you face as the founder and name partner of the firm?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

129

500 RC: The greatest challenge in the future of personal injury litigation is technology, from the perspective of discovery to the requirement for lawyers to be tech-savvy in order to be deemed competent. Clients expect faster replies, courts require e-filing, and researching online is now an everyday occurrence. Clients trying to represent themselves through online forms, fee-sharing with online non-lawyer client referrals, and online research of voir dire are just some of the technology issues we face as information continues to grow exponentially. LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your firm in the coming months or years? RC: The greatest challenge in the year ahead is juggling being a trial lawyer, mentoring young lawyers, and running a law business all at the same time. As the world moves faster, the ability to grow one’s firm for the next generation of lawyers is a huge responsibility. It appears that finding one’s niche, much like the specialties of medicine, is the best way to serve one’s client and achieve justice. That allows the lawyer to be cost-conscious as well as honing one’s skills in taking cases to verdict. It also is important to pass on what one has learned to younger lawyers. They need to know the necessary skills of being a trial lawyer while at the same time being a wise businessperson who knows how to develop relationships. I hope by setting an example of hard work and earning the respect of one’s peers that I pass on the importance of the various responsibilities of being a successful trial lawyer for the next generation. LD: Speaking of the next generation, how do you distinguish Clifford Law from other firms when it comes to potential new recruits? RC: Clifford Law Offices prides itself on preparing every case for trial. We approach every case as if we are going to the very end. We may be particular in the cases we choose to accept, knowing that we can do justice for those involved in complex litigation, but we feel it is a privilege that we have the resources to find the very best expert, to create the very best demonstrative evidence, and to undertake the most intense discovery that every case requires. That’s how we stand apart from the rest. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? RC: One of my favorite outside passions is my wine collection, but I don’t just do it for fun. My wife and I have served as co-chairs of the Naples Wine

130

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Festival, an annual event that raises money for the underprivileged children of Southwest Florida. The money raised provides hot lunches, schoolbooks, eyeglasses, and other essential needs for those who simply can’t afford it. The year that we chaired the event, the auction raised more than $14M in four hours. The total figure has now surpassed $200M over the years. In this 20th year of the organization we just raised over $20M for the kids of Southwest Florida Collier County. It is heartwarming to visit with these charities and see that our passion and our charity makes a difference in the lives of so many. I also enjoy golfing, but who has time for that? LD: Are you involved in any other pro bono or public interest activities? RC: My career and my family give me little time to do other outside interests than what I have mentioned, but I have been very active in bar associations. I have served as President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Chicago Bar Association, and the Chicago Inn of Court. I have been Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation. I have served as Chair of the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. I also have been active in helping the Chicago Police Memorial Foundation. I have sponsored five students every year at Cristo Rey High School for decades, all of whom have gone on to college and several who have gone on to work on my staff at Clifford Law Offices. LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system? RC: My favorite movie actually is “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Although it is not based on the law, it is based on solid moral values. I enjoy watching the movie every year at the holidays with my family as George Bailey is ready to end his life until his guardian angel tells him how his town would have been so very different if not for all of the good deeds that George had done over the years. That story, and his good deeds, never get old. It reminds me every year to try to do more for everyone I can. I also just read a book entitled, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.” What Google, Facebook, and others are doing with our personal data is deeply troubling for us all. LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? RC: I cannot imagine doing anything else other than being a lawyer. And I am very fortunate.

500

LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students? RC: When my eldest daughter graduated law school, I wrote a column for the Chicago Lawyer offering her advice as a new lawyer. • Don’t forget that our judicial system is the best and fairest method for settling disputes. • Always defend the jury process. It is at the heart of all that is just. • Support the rule of law. It is what keeps our country stable and gives us our liberty. • Know that your reputation is what is most important. Your integrity in the legal community is your calling card. • Always do what is right. • The ends do not always justify the means. • You are the guardian of your morals as well as that of your clients. • Return phone calls and emails promptly. • Get involved in the local, state and national bar associations. You will learn a great deal, stay on top of what is happening and make friends for life.

• Be proactive. Make your own opportunities. • Do pro bono work. Give back. • Give as much as you get. Then give some more. • Make your mother proud. Whatever you do, assume your mom knows all about it. • Stay healthy so you can practice law for the rest of your life. • Only time and commitment will determine your level of success. • Be honest. • Love what you do. • Like the famous Apple saying goes, think different. Think out of the box for solutions. Ideas can be powerful. • Be willing to share what you know. As you gain experience, the concept of mentoring will become clear. • Don’t forget about the importance of loyalty. • Find your passion. Then share it. • Learn to laugh. Have fun.

• Never stop learning.

• Focus on what you can control. Don’t worry about what you can’t.

• Seek the truth. There are no stupid questions.

• Set the world on ﬁre.

• Build relationships.

• The law will let your dreams come true.

• Network. Get good at it.

• Always make time for your family and friends.

• Read “To Kill a Mockingbird” again.

• And, above all, know that I will always love you. You always make me proud.

• Get to know and understand all of your clients’ needs so that you can better represent them. • Nothing stays the same. View change as a vehicle for growth.

RC: My daughter, Erin, is now a partner at my ﬁrm. LD: That’s wonderful that she’s following in your footsteps!

IT IS IMPORTANT TO PASS ON WHAT ONE HAS LEARNED TO YOUNGER LAWYERS. THEY NEED TO KNOW THE NECESSARY SKILLS OF BEING A TRIAL LAWYER WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BEING A WISE BUSINESSPERSON WHO KNOWS HOW TO DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

131

500 132

Bo Bruner

Clair Campbell

BELT & BRUNER BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Gregory Bubalo

Vito Cannavo

BUBALO LAW LOUISVILLE, KY.

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

David Buchanan

Deanne Caputo

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.J.

Virginia Buchanan

Robert Carey

LEVIN PAPANTONIO PENSACOLA, FLA.

HAGENS BERMAN PHOENIX

Michael Burrage

Diana Carnemolla

WHITTEN BURRAGE OKLAHOMA CITY

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

Kathy Byrne

David Casey

COONEY & CONWAY CHICAGO

CASEY GERRY SAN DIEGO

Elizabeth Cabraser

Stewart Casper

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

CASPER & DE TOLEDO STAMFORD, CONN.

Michael Caddell

Stacey Cavanagh

CADDELL & CHAPMAN HOUSTON

CAVANAGH LAW GROUP CHICAGO

Daniel Callahan

Timothy Cavanagh

CALLAHAN & BLAINE SANTA ANA, CALIF.

CAVANAGH LAW GROUP CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Mark Chalos

Robert Clifford

LIEFF CABRASER NASHVILLE

CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES CHICAGO

Deborah Chang

Eleni Coffinas

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

Cynthia Chapman

Howard Coker

CADDELL & CHAPMAN HOUSTON

COKER LAW JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

Doris Cheng

Jacqueline Colclough

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

REGAN ZAMBRI WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michelle Cheng

John Coletti

WHITEHURST HARKNESS AUSTIN

PAULSON COLETTI PORTLAND, ORE.

Cynthia Chihak

Roxanne Barton Conlin*

CHIHAK & MARTEL SAN DIEGO

CONLIN & ASSOCIATES DES MOINES

Thomas Cifarelli

Jayne Conroy

CIFARELLI LAW FIRM IRVINE, CALIF.

SIMMONS HANLY NEW YORK

Michael Ciresi*

Ralph Cook*

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

HARE WYNN BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Denyse Clancy

Brent Coon

KAZAN MCCLAIN OAKLAND, CALIF.

COON & ASSOCIATES BEAUMONT, TEXAS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

133

500

Marion Munley MUNLEY LAW (SCRANTON, PA.)

MARION MUNLEY BY KATRINA DEWEY

MARION MUNLEY’S INSPIRATION FOR

upheld them. My grandmother believed that everyone was equal in the eyes of the law and that it was important to ensure that everyone be treated equally and fairly. She was both an inspiration and role model to me and to countless other women throughout Pennsylvania.

becoming a trial lawyer came from her family. From an early age, her grandmother, the Honorable Marion L. Munley, taught her that the laws are meant to protect everyone equally. Her parents started and grew the family’s law practice, Munley Law. Munley, who graduated Temple University School of Law like her father, has a long record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements for injured plaintiffs, many of them in truck accident cases.

My parents also greatly inﬂuenced my decision to become a lawyer. My father started our family’s law practice in 1959, and my mother shaped the business, turning it into one of the leading personal injury ﬁrms in Pennsylvania. They taught me the importance of standing up for the injured, the powerless, the voiceless, and that is the philosophy behind what we do. We stand up for the injured so that everyone can have equal access to the justice system.

Lawdragon: Can you talk about why you wanted to join the family business and represent plaintiffs?

LD: What do you like most about this type of work?

Marion Munley: Our family has a long tradition in public service and law, and from an early age, I knew that I wanted to be a lawyer. My grandmother was one of very few women to serve in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and she also served as its ﬁrst female Secretary. She explained to me how the legislature made the laws, and lawyers and judges 134

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MM: The most rewarding aspect of my work is knowing I have somehow made a difference in the lives of people who have suffered a terrible injury or loss. We help them pick up the pieces and rebuild their lives. In the process, they become part of our family. Knowing that we have obtained some measure of justice for these people is what motivates me and makes all the hard work well worth it.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

WHEN I GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR A WOMAN TO BE FIRST CHAIR ON A TRIAL FOR ANY CATASTROPHIC CASE. WE’VE COME A LONG WAY; ABOUT HALF OF LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES ARE WOMEN. BUT, A RECENT ABA STUDY SHOWS THAT IN 79 PERCENT OF TORT CASES THE LEAD LITIGATOR IS STILL A MAN. THERE’S CERTAINLY ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. LD: Is there a recent achievement that you wish to discuss? MM: Becoming the first woman to chair the American Association for Justice Trucking Litigation Group was exciting for me, not just as a personal achievement but also because it signifies that more women are taking on leadership roles in a field previously dominated by men. LD: Can you tell us a bit more about progress you’ve seen by women lawyers in cases like trucking accidents? Are you seeing significantly more women now handling those suits compared to earlier in your career? MM: When I graduated from law school it was unusual for a woman to be first chair on a trial for any catastrophic case. We’ve come a long way; about half of law school graduates are women. But, a recent ABA study shows that in 79 percent of tort cases the lead litigator is still a man. There’s certainly room for improvement.

was where I wanted to go. I was fortunate to attend Temple Law School and received a great education. I still am an active alumna. 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? MM: I had the honor of representing the family of a highly decorated Marine who was killed in a trucking accident. He was a hero, a husband, and the father of two little boys. My client, his wife, showed incredible strength in the wake of such a tragedy, and it was a privilege to ﬁght on her behalf. LD: What do you try to “sell” about your ﬁrm to potential recruits – how is it unique?

In 1996, I became the second woman in Pennsylvania to be board certiﬁed as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

MM: One of the things that makes our firm unique is that we are a family firm. Munley Law was started by my father 60 years ago; following their example, my siblings and I all became lawyers. This “family-first” approach transcends to how we run our firm and how we treat our clients. Some of our staff have been with us for 20, 30, 40 years. And when we take on a case, we work as a team.

Becoming the ﬁrst woman Chair of the American Association for Justice Trucking Litigation Group was a major milestone, and I’m deﬁnitely not alone as a woman in trucking law. In fact, the next person in line to chair the group is a woman as well.

MM: Reading mystery books, golﬁng, spending time with my husband, Matt, our sons, Jack and Matt, and our dog, Dandy.

LD: Is there a speciﬁc reason why you chose Temple over another law school?

LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now?

MM: When it came time to choose a law school, Temple was where my father and uncle had gone and it

MM: If I didn’t become a lawyer, I would have liked to be a journalist.

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

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

135

500 136

Leto Copeley

Grant Davis

COPELEY JOHNSON DURHAM, N.C.

DAVIS BETHUNE KANSAS CITY, MO.

Philip Harnett Corboy Jr

Mark Davis

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

DAVIS LEVIN HONOLULU

Joseph Cotchett*

David Dean*

COTCHETT PITRE BURLINGAME, CALIF.

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

Joel Cunningham

Jessica Dean

LUVERA LAW FIRM SEATTLE

DEAN OMAR DALLAS

Robert Cunningham

A. Roy DeCaro

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

RAYNES MCCARTY PHILADELPHIA

Fred Cunninngham

Mark Decof

DOMNICK CUNNINGHAM PALM BEACH, FLA.

DECOF & DECOF PROVIDENCE, R.I.

Katie Curry

Michael Demetrio

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Carolyn Daley

Thomas Demetrio

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Frank Darras

Richard Denney

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

DENNEY & BARRETT NORMAN, OKLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Victoria deToledo

Dennis Donnelly

CASPER & DE TOLEDO STAMFORD, CONN.

THE DONNELLY LAW FIRM SUMMIT, N.J.

Tara Devine

Gary Dordick

SALVI SCHOSTOK WAUKEGAN, ILL.

DORDICK LAW BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

Maria Diamond

Kimberly Dougherty

DIAMOND MASSONG SEATTLE

ANDRUS WAGSTAFF BOSTON

David Dickens

Carl Douglas

THE MILLER FIRM ORANGE, VA.

DOUGLAS HICKS LOS ANGELES

David Dickey

Gary Douglas

YERRID LAW FIRM TAMPA, FLA.

DOUGLAS & LONDON NEW YORK

Paulina do Amaral

Roger Dreyer

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

DREYER BABICH SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Christopher Dolan

Henry Dugan

DOLAN LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

DUGAN BABIJ TIMONIUM, MD.

Michael Dolce

Kendall Dunson

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH, FLA.

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Sean Domnick

Ricardo Echeverria

DOMNICK CUNNINGHAM PALM BEACH, FLA.

SHERNOFF BIDART CLAREMONT, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

137

500

Raymond Boucher WOODLAND HILLS (CALIF.)

138

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

RAYMOND BOUCHER IT’S IN THE MOMENTS OF SOLITUDE

at the base of a Colorado mountain that you might begin to understand Ray Boucher.

He’s completed The Fourteeners, and many more in tribute to his father upon his death, which became his pact with himself. He lawyers in the most difficult way, as well, with his heart firmly entrenched in every case, every cause. Guaranteed to cause wreckage. And, if you survive, lead to truth and beauty. Boucher made his name as a California trial lawyer long before he took on the Mt. Everest of litigation: speaking up for hundreds of individuals who had been molested by priests and stayed silent – often for a lifetime – because of their faith. It was early days in what would become a tidal wave of reform when Boucher started to talk to fellow Catholics about horrific harm the church had allowed, covered up, and then denied. The battles he was required to lead against his own church cut deep, but not as much as did the stories of his clients. To Boucher, the magic of the law is its power to effect change in the lives of people harmed by others, whether the others are organizations or individuals. “I don’t look at cases from the standpoint of the rate of return,” says Boucher. “I look at them still, after 30-some odd years, and ask, ‘What’s the purpose of it, and what’s the human element that’s returned to our clients?’” That element is a recurring theme in Boucher’s work, from assisting the family of Demetria Wallace in a mid-1980s lawsuit against Los Angeles police for failing to protect her after she agreed to testify in a murder case to winning the landmark $660M settlement from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in clergy sex-abuse cases in the mid-2000s. “When I look at my career and the cases that I’ve handled – the homeless man I won a verdict for, the clergy abuse victims, and the strike-violence cases on behalf of farm workers – they have a component in which people’s humanity is put to the test,” explains the founding partner of Boucher LLP. “In different ways, they lose a part of it through what has happened to them, through somebody’s conduct that was illegal, inappropriate, vile or inexcusable.”

PHOTO BY: ROBERT BLISS

BY SANDRA HARO More recently, Boucher has committed to work with families from Porter Ranch, a community in northwest Los Angeles evacuated after a massive natural gas leak at a nearby storage facility in late 2015 and taken on claims involving Juul, the e-cigarette maker accused of using candy flavors to attract teens to its products. He’s also working with victims of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya. “The thing about it is, I just feel like over the next 10 to 20 years, there’s so much more to do,” Boucher says. “I still love everything there is about being a lawyer.” Lawdragon: It shows. Not only do you have a lot of cases behind you, you’re handling some very significant matters now. Tell me about Porter Ranch. Raymond Boucher: With Porter Ranch, you have 36,000 people, and we’ve pooled a little over 100 discovery plaintiffs from the plaintiff group, based on four buckets, preparing for a trial in June, which has since been moved to September because of Covid-19: Renters who were relocated; renters who were not relocated; homeowners who were relocated; and homeowners who were not. There will be one family from each of those buckets who will be part of the first trial. LD: How did you get involved? RB: Initially, I was reluctant. Then, I looked at it and thought there were two elements that seemed unique. One was the potential for economic recovery for the business group. I represented a bunch of businesses, and we took the issue to the California Supreme Court, and we recently lost on the question of whether businesses could recover damages. The court upheld prior law that essentially said no, which I think is unfortunate, but I really think that the wildfires that burned large sections of California in 2019 had an impact on the court’s decision. I think they saw it as a slippery slope. Where does the right to recovery start, and where does it end? FedEx can’t deliver up there for a couple of weeks. Do they get a recovery? Banks don’t have the same number of customers. Where do you start, and where do you end? For me, it’s really sad. You have people who are starting businesses, local gyms or small restaurants, whatever they might be, and it becomes a ghost town and they lose everything. That’s not a stretch. Unfortunately, in the end they are left without a recovery and without justice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

139

500

I DON’T LOOK AT CASES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE RATE OF RETURN. I LOOK AT THEM STILL, AFTER 30-SOME ODD YEARS, AND ASK, “WHAT’S THE PURPOSE OF IT, AND WHAT’S THE HUMAN ELEMENT THAT’S RETURNED TO OUR CLIENTS?” LD: And that’s what has happened, right? RB: Right. It has changed now, and it’s getting somewhat better. That’s the real rub, and I don’t think the court could find a way to carve it in a way that would give clear guidance. LD: What piqued your interest about the Porter Ranch gas-blowout cases? RB: At first I had a few friends who had been impacted, the sheer size and magnitude of the impact, I think, from the standpoint of ultimate resolution. Meaning that this kind of blowout has never happened. The closest thing is the BP oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, that blew up in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. That was in and of itself a different animal. So, for me, I filed a class action on behalf of the property owners who didn’t want to bring personal injury claims, but had loss of use and enjoyment of their homes and/ or diminution of value in their homes. At first that has been my primary focus from the standpoint of clients, working with those individuals. The litigation has been ongoing for five years now. People need resolution. We have an incredible group of lawyers working together and getting ready for trial.

ward and litigate to the extent that we could. Iran never answered but the Court ruled that the statute of limitations had run. We argued that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the court to invoke the statute, which is an afﬁrmative defense, on behalf of an absent tortfeasor, in this case, Iran. Because Iran chose not to participate. And, if you look at Iran’s history, I argued that they take advantage of the U.S. courts regularly as a plaintiff. You can’t let them take advantage of the courts as a plaintiff and then protect them when they decide to sit it out as defendants. The cases went up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal. On appeal, the court agreed and reversed the ruling. We were given a very short window to do our prove-up on behalf of our clients. So, to have folks go to Kenya, go to England to take depositions and do the discovery necessary to prove-up the damages in each of the cases. We had special masters that were appointed by the court to make recommendations and evaluate each claim.

LD: Can you please tell us more about the terrorism case you’ve been working on? I know you have a passion for international justice.

We presented the proof to all the special masters, who have made recommendations to the trial court. Hopefully the judge will enter a judgment. We’ll have to seek payment of the judgment through the fund, and enforce then we’ll also have to seek whatever’s not covered by the fund, seek to enforce the remaining judgment against Iran.

RB: In the Kenya bombing, all evidence showed that Sudan and Iran participated in and provided material support to al-Qaida, which carried out the attack. Long before I got involved, a group of lawyers put together a consortium, and they brought a number of cases in the D.C. Circuit, and both Iran and Sudan defaulted. So, they did the discovery they needed to do and proved up the case, and ultimately were able to obtain default judgments for these clients. Toward the end of it, there were a number of other clients who were left out. I was asked by one of the lawyers to look at them, and I decided to move for-

RB: I do. It’s a complex, interesting case. You’re dealing with people whose lives are unalterably affected. Part of what we try to do is to bring healing. When we settled the ﬁrst major component of the clergy abuse cases against Orange County, California, thenBishop Tod Brown wanted to be the one to announce it, which was ﬁne. He gave an apology. Whether people trust the apology, believe in the apologies, that’s always a personal choice. But you could see these survivors who had been so affected by what the church had allowed to happen to them, by the

140

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Do you enjoy working on that case?

500

betrayal and the destruction of their childhoods and their lives, you could see this incredible humanness come back into them. That’s the thing that makes these cases interesting. When you talk about a man or a woman who was out at lunch, and a bombing takes place and they’re pulling bodies out of the rubble, the effect on them, their lives, their families, their hearts and their minds, the nerves and the numbness, and everything that we feel, it’s just amazing. In too many cases, particularly the sexual abuse cases, but others that are similar to it, including the embassy bombing cases, you see survivors or victims of them take their lives, become addicted to drugs, or alcohol, or engage in massively destructive behavior. For us, as lawyers, who are there to ﬁght for their lives, their livelihoods, their humanness, to be able to see it actually occur and the change take place at a real level is what we’re made to do. LD: Right. That’s what it’s all about. RB: For me, I continue to feel blessed in doing what I’m doing. I’ve had this whole constellation of cases, and I’ve been involved and continue to be involved in cutting-edge litigation. Obviously, some of the cases we handle, and I’m handling, are more breadand-butter type cases. They’re not all cutting edge. But even with the Juul cases, the idea of marketing these products in the way that they were, a way that appealed to children and to teens. You can put all the disclaimers you want on the internet: “Sign off that you’re 18 years old,” right? “OK, I’m 18 years old.” But 19-year-old, 20-year-old, 30-year-old, 40-year-old

people, they don’t give a darn about bubblegumflavored nicotine. LD: Right. You and I are not going to go vape bubblegum. RB: That’s designed solely to addict kids, so that they have an ongoing slot machine. That’s frankly what we believe the evidence will show that Juul did: It’s as if children, and young teenagers, are a row of slot machines in Las Vegas. If we can get bubblegum and raspberry, and whatever the flavors happen to be, and get them to pull that lever, and make this cool, make it fun, put some hip-hop around it, they’re going to be slot machines standing there in a row for the rest of their lives, and we’ll make billions of dollars off of them. There is an amazing group of talented lawyers from around the country working on these cases. It’s great to be a part of it. Hopefully this litigation, both on the national and the state level, can help claw back some of those inhumane profits that they were able to obtain, and put it back toward health, and healing and recovery. LD: It’s astounding how fast it started killing people and became known as dangerous. In retrospect, you wonder how we didn’t see this all along. RB: True. LD: Can we go back, for a moment, to the earlier stages of your career, the Demetria Wallace case. Tell me more about that. RB: Demetria Wallace was a high school honors graduate and a student at Los Angeles City College studying to become a California Highway Patrol of-

IN TOO MANY CASES…YOU SEE SURVIVORS OR VICTIMS TAKE THEIR LIVES, BECOME ADDICTED TO DRUGS, OR ALCOHOL, OR ENGAGE IN MASSIVELY DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. FOR US, AS LAWYERS, WHO ARE THERE TO FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES, THEIR LIVELIHOODS, THEIR HUMANNESS, TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT ACTUALLY OCCUR AND THE CHANGE TAKE PLACE AT A REAL LEVEL IS WHAT WE’RE MADE TO DO. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

141

500 142

Emmanuel Edem

Ingrid Evans

NORMAN & EDEM OKLAHOMA CITY

EVANS LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

Brad Edwards

Karen Evans

EDWARDS POTTINGER FT. LAUDERDALE

THE COCHRAN FIRM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Robert Eglet

Elizabeth Faiella

EGLET ADAMS LAS VEGAS

FAIELLA & GULDEN WINTER PARK, FLA.

Tracy Eglet

Elizabeth Fegan

EGLET ADAMS LAS VEGAS

FEGAN SCOTT CHICAGO

Barry Eichen

Bibianne Fell

EICHEN LEVINSON EDISON, N.J.

FELL LAW SAN DIEGO

Lewis “Mike” Eidson

James Ferguson*

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES, FLA.

FERGUSON CHAMBERS CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Gregory Eiesland

Geoffrey Fieger

JOHNSON EIESLAND RAPID CITY, S.D.

FIEGER LAW SOUTHFIELD, MICH.

Mike Ermert

Steven Fineman

HARE WYNN BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Regina Etherton

George Finkbohner III

ETHERTON & ASSOCIATES CHICAGO

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

WHEN WE’RE FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE, AND WE’RE TRYING TO BRING JUSTICE, TRYING TO EFFECTUATE CHANGE, IT’S THE HUMAN COMPONENT TO IT, AND THE FAMILY ASPECT OF IT, THAT IS SO IMPORTANT. THE SIZE OR VALUE OF THE CASE ISN’T WHAT MATTERS. ficer. She had been approached by a Los Angeles police detective and asked to testify about a killing outside her boyfriend’s workplace in May 1983. Right before a preliminary hearing, she got a phone call from someone threatening to blow up her house if she testified. She reached out to the detective, who said, “Look, you’ve got nothing to worry about. We have all these other witnesses. If you had anything to worry about, I would tell you. I stake my life on it.” She said, “Look, I can go to Arizona and live with my grandmother. I can go to Venice to live with my boyfriend.” The detective told her she had nothing to fear. She also talked to her mom, who said, “Look, when a police officer gives you his word, and tells you he stakes his life on it, you can take that to the bank.” Those are the words that she used. A few days before the preliminary hearing, Demetria went out to board the bus to go to school and she was shot and killed in front of her house. Her mother filed a lawsuit against the city afterward, and the trial judge ruled that Los Angeles didn’t have a duty to protect Demetria. So we took it up to the Court of Appeal, and in a published decision called Wallace v. City of Los Angeles, the court issued a precedent-setting decision in 1993 that created a new obligation to provide truthful information to victims and witnesses of crime. So, in her death, she was able to accomplish what she had hoped to accomplish in life. It’s known as the Wallace Rule. LD: Was that one of the first cases that garnered more widespread recognition for you? RB: It was probably the most significant up to that point in time. Later, I took on a case involving pesticides, and the fight against Chlordane and Heptachlor. That was a fairly noted verdict and decision

because of its implication. Ultimately, Chlordane was taken off the market and Heptachlor has been severely limited in its use. I’ve tried I don’t know how many cases, but I worked really hard earlier in my career to keep my name quiet. LD: Why? RB: I enjoyed having anonymity. In a way, I liked having nobody know much about me. LD: You could just do your work, and then go climb mountains. RB: Exactly. But at some point, you handle enough cases, receive some awards that you get some recognition. I also got involved with the board of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles and the State organization. I think that changed things a lot. LD: And after the clergy cases, there was really no going back. Are you ever in touch with any of those victims? RB: I still get notes, particularly during Christmas, from some of the victims. Many are doing much better. Extremely well. I have said, and I believe, that there’s no case that’s bigger, per se, than any other case. For the most part, anybody that comes to a lawyer, they’re coming because something has happened to impact their lives. In the work that we do, on our side of the table, it’s normally something that has had a signiﬁcant effect upon them, whether it’s a mild traumatic brain injury, where people can’t understand why, for instance, a dad who used to be fun, gregarious, and happy is suddenly angry, mad, and can’t remember things. The effect on the whole family will be a lifelong effect. Sexual abuse victims. Even rear-end auto accident cases, where somebody has soft-tissue injuries. When you see them and the effect upon them, it’s just as important as any other major case that you have. When

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

143

500 144

Robert Finnerty

Robert Francavilla

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT FINNERTY LOS ANGELES

CASEY GERRY SAN DIEGO

Wayne Fisher

Carrie Frank

FISHER BOYD HOUSTON

KLEIN FRANK BOULDER, COLO.

James Fitzgerald

Aaron Freiwald

FITZGERALD LAW FIRM CHEYENNE, WYO.

FREIWALD LAW PHILADELPHIA

Fidelma Fitzpatrick

Kenneth Friedman

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

FRIEDMAN RUBIN BREMERTON, WASH.

Yvonne Flaherty

Richard Friedman

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL MINNEAPOLIS

FRIEDMAN RUBIN BREMERTON, WASH.

Jodi Flowers

Agnieszka Fryszman

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Carol Forte

Brenda Fulmer

BLUME FORTE CHATHAM, N.J.

SEARCY DENNEY WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Gary Fox*

Simone Fulmer

STEWART TILGHMAN MIAMI

FULMER SILL OKLAHOMA CITY

Jan Woodward Fox

C. Steven Fury

LAW OFFICE OF JAN WOODWARD FOX HOUSTON

FURY DUARTE BELLEVUE, WASH.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

we’re fighting for people, and we’re trying to bring justice, trying to effectuate change, it’s the human component to it, and the family aspect of it, that is so important. The size or value of the case isn’t what matters. LD: There was a point in time, near the end of the clergy cases, where I didn’t know how you would be able to go on and handle more cases with so much pain. How are you doing with that? RB: Well, there’s no question that by the end of the clergy cases, and all that had come with it, that we had several people in our office who were suffering posttraumatic stress disorder. I was Catholic, still am, but it rocks your faith. I put in an enormous amount of time reviewing DVDs, in which victims told their stories, and meeting with the clients, and learning, and understanding, and editing the DVDs so that they could be presented. Even if I didn’t meet with that particular client, I edited the video and handled other tasks designed to tell each individual story. We had a number of clients on suicide watch at all times, and several that took their lives during the course of litigation, that it can’t help but take a part of that element of humanness away, and at least deaden it, I suppose, in some ways. But for me, I have my two sons, who are amazing young men. I write a lot of poetry, and I climb mountains, like you said. Still doing that. LD: I think lawyers today are more aware of how the stresses that come with the profession affect their mental health. It’s more of a topic now than 10 years ago. And we both know that lawyers who take their job seriously see so much pain. Your ability to find your way through it without shutting down, to recognize the humanity of your clients and use your own to translate theirs to judges and juries is something I’ve always admired about you. RB: I see so many young lawyers who are doing such amazing, amazing work. I think in Los Angeles, in southern California, we have a significant group of outstanding trial lawyers, and I marvel at the work that they do. For some, this is more of a business, and for others, it’s more of a profession. For me, it’s much more of a profession. The funny thing about it is I don’t find the practice of law to be overly stressful. Certainly there can be moments of stress, no question. Certainly, there can be very emotional time periods, where you’re in a battle or a fight in which you just get offended by what the other side is doing.

But I’ve had an amazing love affair with the practice of law, and I know that I’ll go to my death completely engaged in that. That, and the love of my family, helps me manage the effects of difficult situations. LD: You just have to keep yourself attached to the bigger picture. And you can remind yourself of how much good you’ve been able to do. RB: People talk to me about the church, and it was an amazing case with an amazing result. We had a good team of lawyers and people, and a dogged determination and resolve that every single survivor was going to be compensated who had come forward in a timely fashion. We weren’t going to fight over statutes of limitations or anything else. They came forward, and everybody was covered. So that was something we did. Standing up on behalf of everybody to the church, giving them that forum. It was a blessing to participate in that, be at the forefront of helping develop the strategy and executing it. LD: Was it a defining moment in your career? RB: When you watch a movie, the first segment of a movie gets to a certain point, and then you have what they call a plot point, roughly a third of the way through. Then it comes up to a moment halfway through, and again you have another shift. Then you come down to the last plot point, which brings you to the results, to the moral message. I don’t look at my life, my legal life, as the Catholic Church case. It is certainly a plot point. One of the results of it is that people consider me as this lawyer who works on a variety of cases. LD: Incredibly complex and difficult ones. RB: In some ways they are all difficult. I just handled an electrocution case on behalf of a young man who will never work again, who was a laborer, and it was an extremely difficult case. Coming into the trial, we ended up resolving the case for a significant amount of money that will take care of him. And I believe that there’s still so much more out there. The Porter Ranch case, for instance, is an important one. From the day I started practicing to today, I’ve been in awe of what it means to be a lawyer, and do what we do. Like I said, I have this love affair with the law. I’m excited about what we’re still going to be able to do through the law, and what I hope to participate in doing as we move forward. There is still so much to learn and so much to do.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

145

500 Stuart Grossman GROSSMAN ROTH (CORAL GABLES, FLA.)

146

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

STUART GROSSMAN STUART Z. GROSSMAN IS A CELEBRATED

personal injury attorney based in Florida who has spent a lifetime ﬁghting for the rights of injured individuals and their families. He is the reason police in Miami-Dade county no longer apply the chokehold to citizens, and his work for infants who suffered brain damage during labor has led to safer OB-GYN practices.

With a fierce heart and boundless energy for the work, Grossman has secured record settlements and jury verdicts for his clients over the years, including many in the 8- and 9-figure range. In the landmark multidistrict litigation against more than 30 banks regarding overdraft fees in checking accounts, he has secured more than a billion dollars for consumers, and counting. The first in his family to graduate college, Grossman served in the Coast Guard while he went to law school, and co-founded his firm in 1988. He is asked to lecture regularly in law schools and CLE programs, and is increasingly being honored with lifetime achievement awards, even while he maintains a full caseload – including currently representing several families in the Parkland shootings. Lawdragon: You were in college during the height of the civil rights movement. Did that have an impact on your decision to go to law school? Stuart Z. Grossman: Without a doubt. I got an award last year, [the Al J. Cone Lifetime Achievement Award from the Florida Justice Association], and I brought some pictures to the event that I thought had molded or at least directed my life into the law. The first was of some Alabama African Americans being jumped on by police dogs and sprayed by fire hoses. The next one was a picture of Bobby Kennedy after he’d been shot. He was lying on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, in his suit, on the ground, with people around him. I think Kennedy would’ve been a nominee, because he was part of the anti-war movement that was so prevalent at the time. I also brought a picture of Nazi female and male prison guards lounging on chairs outside of a death camp getting sun. My comments to the group at that time were, “These aren’t prehistoric beings. Their brains were molded just like ours. From a highly educated country.” It shows what we’re capable of

PHOTO BY: JOSH RITCHIE

BY ALISON PREECE doing. The mindlessness of it. Could you sit outside of a death camp and get sun? There’s no question that it struck a responsive chord in my heart and made me care about justice. LD: It’s inspiring that you saw these harrowing images and decided to be a part of the change you wanted to see. Was there a certain professor or course that helped you realize you could make a real difference in the world by going into the law? SZG: I had a Humanities professor, Dr. Helmick, who thought there was something about me that was intriguing. We had a great relationship, and she mentored me to where I was able to take graduatelevel courses in English and Literature. At that point I thought I would probably teach, perhaps at a university level. But then a fellow from my high school basketball team was walking across campus, and he had an LSAT book under his arm, and I said, “What’s that, George?” And he said, “Well, that’s the LSAT.” And I said, “What’s that, George?” He explained it to me and I said, “You know what? I may take that test.” It was sort of serendipity, but I had a lot of motivation to keep academics going because of Dr. Helmick. LD: Will you walk us through your career path after law school and up to the founding of your firm? SZG: Immediately after graduating from the University of Miami, I went to George Washington University Law School, and in my first year – two months into it – I was advised by my draft board back in Miami not to make any plans past February. Back then, because the Vietnam War was raging, they were taking 100 to 1,000 kids a month and putting them into the draft, and I was physically fit and I wasn’t going to play any games. So I started looking at programs and I was fortunate enough to get into an active duty program in the Coast Guard, a sixyear overall commitment. I got assigned to search and rescue, and I was still in the service when my commanding officer said I’d done good work, and asked if I would come to the base at midnight to work till 8:00 a.m. He let me go to law school during the day, which I did. LD: Wait. When did you sleep? SZG: I wasn’t sleeping much then. I finished my first semester, both in the military on active duty and as a student. Then I caught this enormous break when

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

147

500 148

Anthony Gair

James Gilbert

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

THE GILBERT LAW GROUP ARVADA, COLO.

Alicia Garcia

Vicki Gilliam

ABOUREZK & GARCIA RAPID CITY, S.D.

THE GILLIAM FIRM BRANDON, MISS.

Stephen Garcia

Thomas Girardi

GARCIA ARTIGLIERE LONG BEACH, CALIF.

GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES

Todd Gardner

Thomas Giuffra

SWANSON GARDNER RENTON, WASH.

RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA NEW YORK

Sekou Gary

John Goetz

GARY WILLIAMS STUART, FLA.

SCHWEBEL GOETZ MINNEAPOLIS

Willie Gary

Ralph Gonzalez

GARY WILLIAMS STUART, FLA.

YERRID LAW FIRM TAMPA, FLA.

Laura Benitez Geisler

James Gotz

SOMMERMAN MCCAFFITY DALLAS

HAUSFELD BOSTON

Rachel Geman

Brent Goudarzi

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

GOUDARZI & YOUNG GILMER, TEXAS

Eric Gibbs

Elizabeth Govaerts

GIBBS LAW GROUP OAKLAND, CALIF.

POWERS LAW FIRM LINCOLN, NEB.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Miami’s premier trial lawyer, J.B. Spence, his firm offered me a job as a clerk. I wound up clerking there my freshmen year then getting hired as their only associate. After four or five years, I became a name partner, and then stayed there until I formed my own firm.

That evolved because, in my original job, we had an investigator, and he had no medical background, but I began to realize that if you didn’t farm this work out, you had a lot of consistency in terms of getting a product done. You could walk down the hall and talk to that person on a daily basis.

LD: What led you to want to found your own ﬁrm?

We decided that even though we don’t bill for their time, we think that we get an enhanced value out of it because we know our people. We know what they’re working on. We know where in the pipeline the cases are, and they know how we behave and what it is that we’re looking for in terms of bottom line results and the hiring of experts, the scheduling, all the appropriate steps.

SZG: I think that a younger lawyer views the world differently than a senior veteran lawyer. I was at least 12 years younger than my youngest partner, and my senior partner was 25 years older than I was. I just had a vision of doing things my own way, which was not radically different than theirs, but it was different enough that I wanted that freedom.

I DON’T BLAME A DEFENDANT FOR EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN. I TRY TO FOCUS IN ON THE IMPORTANT THINGS AND NOT NITPICK, AND THEN COMMUNICATE IT IN A LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE CAN RELATE TO AND UNDERSTAND. They were very fair to me financially. It was nothing like that. I just thought about certain steps, certain sacrifices I would make that senior partners weren’t interested in. They’ll put so much effort in and that’s it. I’ve always been, even to this day, extremely enthusiastic about the practice. I just don’t slow down, and I view it as you’re either all in or you’re not in. That’s just my own personal belief. So Neal Roth, who became my partner, had practiced law with Stanley Rosenblatt, who was a very famous Miami trial attorney. I knew that his training had been excellent. He knew that mine had been excellent, and it seemed like the next generation was going to hatch, and we did. I have a slogan saying, “The good ones always leave,” because they really feel that tug to do it themselves. LD: Your firm has full-time medical investigators on staff, which is not true for every plaintiff or personal injury firm. How did you come to that decision, and how does it affect your workflow? SZG: We actually have two full-time non-medical investigators that are former homicide police or DEA policeman, retired, fully vested. Then we have about six or seven full-time medical investigators.

This is particularly true in the complicated field of medical malpractice in Florida, which has pre-suit requirements. You simply can’t sue a healthcare provider in Florida as you could a motorist. You have to obtain affidavits from experts in advance of any filings, and then you go through a pre-suit period of, normally, a few months. You have to give the defense the opportunity to get the records, to interview your client, to talk to their own experts and whatnot before deciding to move forward with a settlement or litigation. Since the process is so front-end loaded, we found that the investigators just make sense to have. They do the work beautifully. We’ve had no turnover. These folks stay with us and we’re very glad to have them. LD: Is there one case from throughout your career that stands out as a highlight or particularly memorable? SZG: At different junctures there were a lot of memorable cases, but early on I handled a case for the family of a baby, named Richard Sanchioni Jr., who suffered brain damage during the labor process. It was a landmark case for a few reasons, including being the largest jury award in Palm Beach County

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

149

500 at the time, for nearly $7M. It was also really the case that thrust me into obstetrics malpractice, where I’ve done a great deal of work.

of his life, which was only 10 years after that point. People in comas don’t live a normal life expectancy, as you can imagine.

Through that case, I met Dr. Imanuel Friedman, the chairman of OB-GYN at Harvard, who developed the Friedman Labor Curve. When a woman progresses in labor, her cervix expands and the fetal position moves down, which gets graphed on your medical chart. It’s still used in every delivery to date to show the progress being made, because if there’s no progress, then they know to intervene. Friedman took me under his wing, and we’ve done a lot of successful cases together since then.

As a result of that case, they no longer implement the chokehold in Miami-Dade County. And my picture was in a police training ofﬁce with a warning saying, “Don’t apply the chokehold or you’ve got to meet this guy.”

Then about 15 years ago, I tried a case called Goldberg v. Florida Power and Light, in which a child was killed coming home with her mom in a car. They went into an intersection where Florida Power and Light had disabled the traffic signal, intentionally, to put out a small wire that had fallen and charred a lady’s lawn several blocks away. It was a stormy afternoon, and there was a terrible collision, and this child was killed. I discovered that the police had offered Florida Power and Light help, such as watching the intersection or controlling traffic, and they rejected the entreatments of the police. That resulted in a $28M verdict, which was the largest verdict in the United States for wrongful death of a child at the time, and that stood for many years. Her name was Jill Goldberg, and she was 10-years old at the time. We also had a police brutality case against the city of Miami in the early ’90s. A young African American man, Antonio Edwards, was eating lunch in his car outside of a public park, waiting for a mechanic. The police saw that the car was on a one-way street but facing the other way. So an officer gets Antonio out of the car, and claims he noticed a firearm on the floor of the car and that Antonio was reaching for it. He put him in a chokehold. A chokehold is considered deadly force. After maybe a minute or so, your oxygen content is low and you become limp, unconscious. At this point the police officer should lay the person down carefully. Instead, the officer slammed him down to the pavement and choked him for several minutes. He was deprived of oxygen to such an extent that he had a massive heart attack and suffered severe brain damage. And by the way, no weapon was ever found in Antonio’s car. We achieved a multi-million dollar settlement and Antonio received $1,000 dollars a day for the rest

150

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: That’s incredible. I wish that was national policy and not just in Miami-Dade. Would you say we have made progress as a nation when it comes to police brutality? Or at least, from the legal side, do we have more tools to fight it? SZG: Absolutely, we do. We went through a period in this country when the police could basically get away with murder. Now you see almost monthly two or three prisoners being released as innocent because of DNA testing, originally convicted because an officer took the stand and related some misconduct, often with little to no evidence nor credible witnesses. And these people spent decades, half their lives sometimes, in prison. We’re all under stay-at-home orders now [with the coronavirus pandemic], which has been challenging and frustrating for some individuals. But we have our flatscreen TVs and our spouses and pets and backyards. Imagine spending decades locked in prison with clanking cells and screams all night long? For no justifiable reason? I thank our lucky stars for trial lawyers for having expanded that horizon. Attorneys General can put the brakes on these cases, or try to, at the state and at the federal level. Generally speaking, they align themselves with law enforcement. If it weren’t for the constant probing and prodding and picking that courageous civil trial lawyers have undertaken, none of this would have been advanced. Thanks to these lawyers, we have constitutional protection given to you to sue the state. We’ve had to overcome a lot of terrible legislation, bad laws, and bad people in power. And we’ve made tremendous progress. LD: What do you have on your caseload currently? SZG: I have a number of cases involving the Florida International University bridge collapse. Last month I got retained in a case on Fisher Island, which is off of Miami Beach. It’s an exclusive community that you have to get to by ferry, and the ferry deposited a car off the end, and the drivers drowned in the middle of our shipping channel. I’m also representing four

500

WE ALSO HAD A POLICE BRUTALITY CASE AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE EARLY ’90S. AS A RESULT OF THAT CASE, THEY NO LONGER IMPLEMENT THE CHOKEHOLD IN MIAMIDADE COUNTY. AND MY PICTURE WAS IN A POLICE TRAINING OFFICE WITH A WARNING SAYING, “DON’T APPLY THE CHOKEHOLD OR YOU’VE GOT TO MEET THIS GUY.” families out of the Parkland Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. LD: What’s going on with the Parkland case? SZG: We believe we have a superb case that shows that the Sheriff’s department was ill trained and that the person that they had as a … let’s just call him a school security officer, failed to respond appropriately when he heard gunshots. In essence, he didn’t run towards the shooting, he stayed out of the building, and you could hear 20 shots fired in different locations. He made no effort whatsoever. Their response to send additional backups was late, and other governmental agencies also mishandled early warning signs as to the propensities of this student, who had actually been expelled. He had given off more than enough warnings that he was crazy, dangerous, and homicidal. It was no surprise that he showed up that day. He was not supposed to be on campus. They let him on campus. I can’t begin to tell you how distorted the facts are. LD: I’m glad they have you fighting for them. Now let me ask you this. Your clients are often going through the most challenging times in their lives. What self care practices do you have outside of the office so that you can keep showing up for your clients? SZG: I try to stay in terrific shape. I train three days a week with my trainer, even now, we just broadcast it in. I’m lucky to have a home gym so I haven’t given up on that. I walk a great deal. I fly-fish, I’ve got a boat, I’m on the water as much as I can be. Up until just a short while ago, I had a horse, and I would ride pretty regularly. His name was Champ. I lost my 15-year-old daughter to cancer in 2001, and I really credit the horse with getting me through. I just

rode him by myself and imagined she was with me, and the different things you go through as you try to make sense out of something for which there is no sense to be made. I’m a big believer in the power of animals, and the outdoors. LD: I feel the same way. Nature is a great healer. I’m so sorry to hear about your daughter. Do you have any other kids? SZG: I’ve got a son, Joe, who’s a lawyer. He went to law school, but he’s now doing standup comedy in Manhattan. He’s a looker, too. He’s done some modeling, and he’s taking acting classes and other stuff. He’s learning the ropes. He goes on stage two, three nights a week at various different clubs. He’s taking his craft very seriously. He’s behaving like a young lawyer in a comedian’s world, meaning he’s doing it right. He’s spending the time to get it done. LD: I’m sure you’ve been a great inﬂuence. How would you describe your style as a lawyer, Stuart? Or how do you think other people would describe you? SZG: I’m very big on saying, “Be yourself.” I seek to be able to communicate, and hopefully come across as sincere and knowledgeable about what I’m talking about. I don’t blame a defendant for everything under the sun. I try to focus in on the important things and not nitpick, and then communicate it in a language that people can relate to and understand. I think a lawyer should be himself or herself, and then make the most of it. Certainly polish it and work at it, but yourself has got to come through. You can’t change every day of the week, depending upon the circumstance. Consistency, I think, is important because that leads to reliability which leads to believability and credibility before a jury.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

151

500 152

Lawrence Grassini

Rene Haas

GRASSINI & WRINKLE WOODLAND HILLS, CALIF.

PERRY HAAS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

Mark Gray

William Andrew Haggard

GRAY & WHITE LOUISVILLE, KY.

THE HAGGARD FIRM CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Betsy Greene

Holly Haines

GREENE & SCHULTZ BLOOMINGTON, IND.

ABRAMSON BROWN MANCHESTER, N.H.

Browne Greene*

Michael Hausfeld

GREENE BROILLET SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Andrew Greenwald

Edward Havas

JOSEPH GREENWALD GREENBELT, MD.

DEWSNUP KING SALT LAKE CITY

Dicky Grigg*

Lexi Hazam

SPIVEY & GRIGG AUSTIN

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Stuart Grossman

Richard Heimann*

GROSSMAN ROTH CORAL GABLES, FLA.

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

P. Christopher Guedri

Steven Heimberg

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

HEIMBERG BARR LOS ANGELES

Peter Anthony Guerrero

Russ Herman*

ROUSH MCCRACKEN PHOENIX

HERMAN HERMAN NEW ORLEANS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Steve Herman

Arash Homampour

HERMAN HERMAN NEW ORLEANS

THE HOMAMPOUR FIRM SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF.

Charles Herrmann

Kenneth Hovermale

HERRMANN LAW GROUP SEATTLE

HOVERMALE LAW PORTLAND, MAINE

Lara Herrmann

Christopher Hurley

HERRMANN LAW GROUP SEATTLE

HURLEY MCKENNA CHICAGO

Nancy Hersh

Daniel Iracki

HERSH & HERSH SAN FRANCISCO

COKER LAW JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

Howard Hershenhorn

Cory Itkin

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Mark Hiepler

Jason Itkin

HIEPLER & HIEPLER OXNARD, CALIF.

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Robert Higgins

Jaime Jackson

LUBIN & MEYER BOSTON

ATLEE HALL LANCASTER, PA.

Wayne Hogan

Joseph Johnson

TERRELL HOGAN JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

BABBITT JOHNSON WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

James Holloran

Lynn Johnson

HOLLORAN SCHWARTZ ST. LOUIS

SHAMBERG JOHNSON KANSAS CITY, MO.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

153

500 Tom Moore and Judy Livingston KRAMER DILLOF LIVINGSTON & MOORE (NEW YORK)

154

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

TOM MOORE & JUDY LIVINGSTON TOM MOORE AND JUDY LIVINGSTON HAVE

worked alongside each other for over three decades, achieving personal injury verdicts for clients and their families that have reshaped the standards of medical practice in this country. Their cases have led to limits in the number of hours medical students can work as residents to avoid the exhaustion that can lead to errors, and better standards for administering anesthesia. This powerhouse duo also happen to be married with three children, two of whom are pursuing careers in the law. They are two of the named partners at Kramer Dillof Livingston & Moore, based in New York.

Lawdragon: Your firm is very busy and well-respected in the medical malpractice and personal injury field. Will you talk a bit about your selection process when it comes to taking on new clients? Tom Moore: Our firm long ago decided it would never get too big to give personal attention to all clients. As a result, the selection of cases we choose to spend our energies on is paramount. The severity of the injury is always an overriding consideration. We look for cases that challenge us. We don’t care how tough the case is, as long as it is significant and valid. LD: How did you each make the decision to focus your practice on plaintiff-side, personal injury cases? TM: Growing up in Ireland, I developed a deep compassion for the plight of those in need. I supported myself through Fordham Law School at night by working days for an insurance company. Immediately, I realized that my heart was always with the injured. On the day I was admitted to the bar, I tried my first case, and haven’t stopped since. I quickly gravitated to the plaintiffs’ side, identifying with those who were most injured, with a strong desire to champion their cause. Judy Livingston: I realized in my first year of law school, upon reading the seminal decision of Palsgraff v. Long Island Railroad, that the law is fraught with technicalities that can deprive victims of justice. I decided then to spend my career representing those victims and overcoming the deck that was stacked against them. Having raised three children and being constantly aware of the importance of family, my particular

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY ALISON PREECE

sympathies always lie with children who lose a parent or families torn apart by negligence. LD: Judy, you became a trial lawyer at a time when that was still quite uncommon for women. Do you have any advice for anyone currently feeling underrepresented in this already-adversarial field? JL: When I first started trying cases it didn’t even dawn on me that the fact that I was a woman should be any impediment to being in the courtroom. I always felt that jurors are intrigued by people who take on non-traditional roles. I pass on the advice I was given long ago, to never be intimidated by your adversaries. People who try to take advantage of you because of your differences are often exposed for their prejudices. It might be the gruff man who tries to bully a woman or the racist who uses “dogwhistles” in the hope of sending messages to likeminded jurors. While, unfortunately those tactics might work occasionally, the smart adversary can often use them to her advantage. LD: In what ways does your firm train and mentor younger lawyers? JL: Recognizing the very long and difficult learning curve to become a good plaintiffs’ lawyer, we encourage great participation by younger lawyers in the exciting aspects of a personal injury practice. Mentoring isn’t just an “in office” event, but occurs at arguments of appeals, depositions, and all aspects of trials. To subject young lawyers to only the drudgery of the paper practice without exposure to the real life drama of the courtroom would not encourage or lead young talented lawyers to the real heart of the practice. LD: Over your 30-plus years each doing this type of work, are there any particular cases that stand out as having a broad or profound effect on the medical industry as a whole? JL: We are quite proud about how we have not just helped the individuals we have represented, but the very broad impact to society at large as a result of many of our cases. One case we tried together was on behalf of Libby Zion against New York Hospital and treating doctors. She was 18-years old when she was brought into New York Hospital and treated by overworked, sleep deprived, unsupervised residents. These young, in-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

155

500 experienced physicians were working 36-hour shifts, and that lack of sleep and supervision resulted in a litany of errors causing Libby’s death. Her tragedy, made public by the lawsuit, lead to nationwide rules limiting the number of hours doctors in training were allowed to work. TM: The case of Emma McDougald, a mother about to give birth, who suffered severe brain damage as a result of bad anesthesia care, was, along with similar cases, the compelling motivation in the ﬁeld of anesthesiology for developing technology that largely eliminated the ability for human error in anesthesia delivery. Lauren Sclafani was severely burned when a bartender poured 151 proof rum on the bar and lit the bar on ﬁre. Not long after this lawsuit was concluded, this 151 proof rum was taken off the shelves and no longer produced, saving many from the stupid antics of bartenders and the inebriated. JL: In Lee v. New York Hospital Queens, a man walked into the emergency room, requiring surgery to remove his gallbladder. After admission, he languished for three-and-a-half days, without having the operation, and as a result, developed sepsis and died a painful death. Because Mr. Lee was in his 60s, with very low earnings and adult children, the defense tried to get away with paying a pittance for his pain and suffering and death. As a result of the verdict, instead, they paid record numbers for a plaintiff in these circumstances. LD: What trends are you seeing in medical malpractice or personal injury law these days, in terms of the type of work keeping you busy? TM: A very positive trend we have witnessed is the general, though not universal improvement in the quality of breast cancer diagnosis. Gone are the days of doctors thinking they could tell by palpation whether a breast lump is cancer or not. Now, by a combination of lawsuits and better education of the public and medical profession, generally patients are being diagnosed earlier, the quality of care has improved, and the cases are fewer. A growing negative trend is the increasing frequency of distracted driving, leading to huge increases in the cases involving pedestrians and bicyclists, who are severely injured. JL: The lack of humanism by physicians towards their patients, shocks us to this day. If doctors would only read and follow the great work of the late Dr. Arnold

156

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gold, of Columbia Presbyterian Medical School and his wife Dr. Sandra Gold, founders of the White Coat ceremony, the Gold Foundation, and champions of humanism in medicine, care would be far superior and medical negligence less common. LD: How would you describe each other’s styles as lawyers? JL: Tom’s unique style has set the standard in personal injury trials for nearly three decades. He has achieved a record of 92 verdicts in excess of $1M, most of which are in excess of $10M, and four verdicts over $100M, every one on behalf of individual plaintiffs. This extraordinary success is owing to his total belief in the justice of his cause and his deep compassion for his client. His passion is the foundation of both his withering cross-examinations and mesmerizing summations. TM: Judy learned a long time ago that being thoroughly prepared is the cornerstone to success in the courtroom. While the long hours and hard work are necessary, the fruits of that labor bring about the exciting, spontaneous moments that fascinate jurors. Judy has the unique talent of being able to pull together the subtle pieces of evidence in a way that leads witnesses down the road to confessing the truth. LD: Does it look like any of your three children might follow your footsteps and get into the law? TM: My how time flies! Our youngest son, long ago, let us know that his many and varied interests lay far from the law. JL: Our daughter, one year out of Fordham Law School, is an associate at Boies Schiller Flexner, loving their exciting and varied litigation practice. TM: Our son, James, joined our firm after working as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn. So far, he has tried two cases. One started trial as a “no pay” case, but settled at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. The other, also a “no pay” case, resulted in a verdict in the sum of $3,590,000, more than he asked for on summation! LD: What do you two do for fun outside of the office? TM: Fun covers a range of activities. It’s dinners and weekends with the family, playing with the dog on the beach, an occasional round of golf. JL: And for Tom, hours of exercise, including running and occasional biking.

500

Valerie Johnson

Marlon Kimpson

COPELEY JOHNSON DURHAM, N.C.

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

E. Stewart Jones

Colin King

JONES HACKER TROY, N.Y.

DEWSNUP KING SALT LAKE CITY

Mark Kamitomo

Aimee Kirby

THE MARKAM GROUP SPOKANE, WASH.

DOLAN LAW FIRM LOS ANGELES

Julie Braman Kane

David Kirby

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES, FLA.

EDWARDS KIRBY RALEIGH, N.C.

Christopher Keane

Beth Klein

KEANE LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

KLEIN FRANK BOULDER, COLO.

Don Keenan

Thomas Kline

KEENAN LAW FIRM ATLANTA

KLINE & SPECTER PHILADELPHIA

Michael Kelly

Loren Klitsas

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

KLITSAS & VERCHER HOUSTON

Leslie Kelmachter

Karen Koehler

SILVER & KELMACHTER NEW YORK

STRITMATTER KESSLER SEATTLE

Trent Kerns

Alison Kohler

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

DUGAN BABIJ TIMONIUM, MD.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

157

parents of two sets of triplets. Both received their law degrees from IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Lawdragon: Please talk about the case you handled for the family of Andrew Cazares. For those of us outside Chicago, what is the “code of silence” and what was its role within the case against the city?

Tim Cavanagh CAVANAGH LAW GROUP (CHICAGO)

TIM CAVANAGH BY JOHN RYAN

LIKE MANY TRIAL LAWYERS AT THE TOP

of their field, Tim Cavanagh gained courtroom experience early in his career working for the government. Once in private practice, he learned quickly that he wanted to put his trial skills to use for people, not corporations, and he did so at Chicago mainstay Corboy & Demetrio before launching his own highly successful personal injury practice. Among his highprofile cases, Cavanagh represented the family of Andrew Cazares, who along with friend Fausto Manzera was killed by a drunk-driving off-duty Chicago police officer in 2009. Lawyers for the families had to battle with the Chicago Police Department’s “code of silence” to reach a $20M settlement, which was approved by the City Council in 2018. The case is part of a long record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements for Cavanagh Law Group, a name that reflects a family operation. Cavanagh and his wife Stacey Feeley Cavanagh are law partners and 158

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Tim Cavanagh: We were on trial in Federal Court in Chicago for two weeks and settled during closing arguments, which is a bit unusual. We worked on the case for nine years. I had the pleasure of working with my old boss Kevin Conway from Cooney & Conway and a new partner of mine, Mike Sorich. The months leading up to the trial were very intense, and the trial was even more intense. To resolve a case that late in the game is gratifying in one sense because we secured a $20M settlement. But it was also, I suppose, a little bit anticlimactic. Ultimately, our job is to get the best results for the client. They offered that record-breaking sum, and we felt compelled to accept it. The Chicago Police Department has had a problem for years and years with the “code of silence,” which is an unwritten agreement among police officers who are trying to protect their own. You won’t find any written agreement, where CPD or the city of Chicago says, “Hey, if you find a fellow police officer doing something wrong, let him go.” It’s called the code of silence for a reason. It’s meant to be secret, but it’s evidenced in a lot of different ways. When a police officer does something wrong in front of his or her partner, the partner won’t report the incident. It could be something minor. But in this case, it was an alcoholic police officer who had driven drunk on many occasions in the past. The Chicago Police Department knew Officer Joseph Frugoli was an alcoholic. Police caught him driving drunk multiple times. And instead of treating him like any other citizen – and arresting him and throwing him in jail and letting the criminal justice system take its course – he was let go. Being arrested would have hopefully let that officer know he’s got a problem and it’s time to deal with it. LD: What were some of the incidents you discovered that alerted you it was a pattern with Officer Frugoli? TC: We found out in discovery that Frugoli once hit a marked police squad car when he was coming back from a casino. He ran a red light, and instead of performing tests for alcohol use, police drove him home. There were other tell-tale signs, but the key evidence was never produced to us and did not come out until

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

trial. When Frugoli was a rookie cop, he pulled up to a bar because his brother had been in a fight there the day before. Frugoli had been drinking and beat up somebody with a pool stick. The owner chased him out and called the police. Frugoli took off in a car right in front of a Chicago police sergeant who was responding to the call. Ultimately, Frugoli stopped a couple hundred feet away and told the sergeant he was CPD. He said, “Nobody messes with the Frugolis.” It was meant to send a message: The rules didn’t apply to him. Even though the police knew he’d been drinking, they allowed Frugoli to drive himself to the police station. When reports were typed up, police scrubbed any mention of him being drunk. Shockingly, all the charges against him went away. So, from his first year as a police officer, Frugoli found out really quickly what the code of silence was – that if he got into a bar fight and beat somebody up, and fled in a car driving drunk, he was going to be let go. Actually, documents from that incident were hidden from us in this case. We didn’t find out about them until the middle of trial, years after we should’ve learned about them. When we ultimately discovered that this incident had occurred, the city had to cough up those documents. It blew the case wide open. LD: Is that what pushed the case toward a settlement? TC: The defense made a token settlement offer at the beginning of trial. Once we found out they had hidden evidence – and those documents were produced – they knew they had a huge problem. That’s when they started making serious settlement offers. It didn’t resolve until about a week later during a break in my closing argument. When you catch a defendant hiding evidence and the jury knows about it, it’s a big deal to the jury. And let me make clear that I do not believe the outside counsel trying the case for the city was involved. It was a big deal to us, and it was a big deal to the judge. LD: What has happened since then, in terms of when the two families will receive settlement money and any reforms or other fallout for the police or the city? What do you expect to be the lasting effects of this case? TC: The family received the settlement proceeds in 2018. We got the justice we wanted, but we’re certainly not happy that the City of Chicago didn’t produce documents. We filed a motion for sanctions against the city for failing to produce those documents. U.S.

District Judge Virginia Kendall, who presided over the case, actually asked the city to respond to her own motion on why these documents were never produced during discovery. LD: What about the code of silence? TC: I’d like to think that the code of silence has been brought to the public’s attention in a dramatic way. But I don’t think for a second that it’s going to go away. Outgoing Mayor Rahm Emanuel has publicly for the first time acknowledged that a code of silence problem exists in the Chicago Police Department, and we played for the jury a video of his speech to the Chicago City Council. The first step is recognizing there’s a problem and having transparency. But it’s going to take leadership from the Chicago Police Department. When officers do things right, they should be commended for it. When they commit criminal acts, they should be punished for it. Their fellow officers shouldn’t be covering up for them. The stakes are too high. At what point do you still cover for a police officer? Let’s say your partner parks illegally. Do I expect that they’re going to get tickets for that? No. But when police drive drunk, they should be arrested, and they should be criminally charged. They shouldn’t be let go because they are police officers. Too many people’s lives have been destroyed by the code of silence. The families of Andrew Cazares and Fausto Manzera are good examples of that. LD: What have been some of your other recent verdicts and settlements for clients? TC: We settled a $5M product liability case against the manufacturer of an industrial machine. The blades on the machine cut off four fingers of our client’s non-dominant hand when a co-employee engaged the machine. The machine was recently designed and manufactured, and there’s state-ofthe-art technology out there that would have prevented the machine from engaging. We also recently obtained a $7.5M settlement against Metra for a case in which a woman suffered a traumatic brain injury and obtained a $5.9M settlement in a road construction wrongful death case. LD: I’d like to discuss your earlier career. Why did you join the Illinois Attorney General’s Office after law school?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

159

500 TC: For a simple reason: to get trial experience. I was 25 when I got out of law school. I didn’t want to work for a firm where I was going to be in a warehouse looking at documents. I wanted to get in the courtroom. Several weeks after becoming an assistant attorney general, I was on a three-week trial in East St. Louis, Illinois. I spent about two-and-a-half years with the attorney general’s office before becoming a personal injury attorney. LD: What about the job led you to want to go into plaintiff-side litigation? Was this something you had also thought about in law school? TC: I clerked at a personal injury firm, Cooney & Conway, in Chicago for several years with some amazing lawyers. Fast forward to the Cazares case over thirty years later. Kevin Conway from Cooney & Conway represented Manzera in the Cazares v. City of Chicago case, which was very rewarding. I was also fortunate to get a job as a lawyer at Corboy & Demetrio, another personal injury firm. I think, ultimately, I like to represent people. There was a stint where I represented some banks and corporations, and it wasn’t gratifying. I guess it’s just not part of my DNA. I like to represent people in cases that really matter to them. LD: After you had been in private practice, why did you decide to start your own firm instead of staying with an established firm? TC: A variety of reasons. I think I’m sort of entrepreneurial in nature, for one. But more important than that, I wanted to be in charge of my own legal destiny, so to speak. I learned a lot in the firms where I previously worked. I had a feeling in my gut that I was going to be able to attract significant cases and worthy clients. I wanted to do it on my own and build a team. LD: What makes Cavanagh Law Group special? In addition to courtroom talent, what has been key to maintaining such a consistent level of success? TC: Very simple: It’s our team. We have a phenomenal group of lawyers and staff that come into the office every day ready to engage and fight and be committed. LD: I know all clients are important, but is there a case from your career that is particularly memorable due to the challenges, the results or other factors? TC: Two cases, I think. It would probably have to be the Cazares case and a railroad crash case Velardi v. Canadian National Railroad. The Cazares case was unique because we had to prove a code of silence – which was meant to be a secret. This isn’t a case

160

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

where you’ve got a truck crash, for example, and there’s a finite point of negligence captured on video tape. The misconduct took place over many years and was meant to be hidden. That conduct ultimately led to this tragic crash on the Dan Ryan Expressway, where these two boys were killed. One of the things that sticks out is just how dramatic it was. Frugoli was trying to help out the city when he uttered that he had been involved in this incident and that no one knew about it. It led to the late production of all these documents. And it blew the case wide open. The Velarde case resulted in a $55M verdict that was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court. Our clients sustained brain injuries in an SUV/train crash. I still remain in touch with the family after all these years. LD: Can you talk about how you met your wife and what it’s like to practice law together? TC: We met at Corboy & Demetrio in 1993. It has been wonderful personally and professionally! In 2014 we tried a wrongful death case together and obtained a $6.65M verdict. We are very busy personally as we have six children; two sets of triplets. The oldest boys will be 13 in December. Our second set of triplets, two girls and a boy, are 10 right now. It’s been a lot of fun. That’s kind of our unique story, I guess. Two sets of triplets. We don’t do anything easy. LD: What do you like to do to get away from the office? TC: Well, I’m really involved in going to my kids’ basketball games these days. I love watching them play basketball. All of them enjoy it. I like to golf, but I don’t get to as often as I’d like. Traveling with the kids is also a big one. We took them to Europe last summer for the first time: Italy and Ireland. My favorite thing is just being around the kids. LD: Are there extra-practice or charitable groups or activities that you or the firm are involved with that you wish to discuss? TC: I’m fortunate to be a director of the WGA Evans Scholars Foundation, which has over 900 kids/caddies on full scholarships in colleges around the country. I’m on the Ambassadors Board for Mercy Home for Boys & Girls on the Near West Side of Chicago. I’m on the board of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. And I’m going to be on the board of my alma mater, John Carroll University.

500

Michelle Kohut

Joseph Landy

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

LESSER LESSER WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Jason Konvicka

Rebecca Langston

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

LANGSTON & LANGSTON JACKSON, MISS.

Josh Koskoff

W. Mark Lanier

KOSKOFF KOSKOFF BRIDGEPORT, CONN.

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

James Kreindler

Jennifer Lawrence

KREINDLER & KREINDLER NEW YORK

LAWRENCE FIRM COVINGTON, KY.

Scott Krist

Richard Lawrence

KRIST LAW FIRM HOUSTON

LAWRENCE FIRM COVINGTON, KY.

Leslie Kroeger

Ira Leesfield

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH, FLA.

LEESFIELD SCOLARO MIAMI

Noah Kushlefsky

Theodore Leopold

KREINDLER & KREINDLER NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN PALM BEACH, FLA.

Walter Lack

Gary Lesser

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB LOS ANGELES

LESSER LESSER WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Frank LaMothe

Fredric Levin

LAMOTHE LAW FIRM NEW ORLEANS

LEVIN PAPANTONIO PENSACOLA, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

161

500 162

Halley Lewis

Michael Livingston

FONVIELLE LEWIS TALLAHASSEE

DAVIS LEVIN HONOLULU

Jeannete Lewis

Thomas Loeser

LEWIS LEGAL GROUP PLANTATION, FLA.

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

Richard Lewis

Bridget Long

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN PETERSBURG, VA.

Micha Star Liberty

Ramon Lopez

LIBERTY LAW OAKLAND, CALIF.

LOPEZ MCHUGH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.

Dan Lipman

Kathy Love

PARKER LIPMAN DENVER

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Graham LippSmith

Kenneth Lumb

KASDAN LIPPSMITH LOS ANGELES

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

David Lira

Arthur Luxenberg

GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES

WEITZ & LUXENBERG NEW YORK

Zoe Littlepage

Barry MacBan

LITTLEPAGE BOOTH HOUSTON

MACBAN LAW OFFICES TUCSON, ARIZ.

Judith Livingston*

Laura MacBan

KRAMER DILLOF NEW YORK

MACBAN LAW OFFICES TUCSON, ARIZ.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Stephen Mackauf

Roberto Martinez

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Allison MacLellan

Angela Mason

MACLELLAN LAW FIRM DORCHESTER, MASS.

THE COCHRAN FIRM DOTHAN, ALA.

Mitchell Makowicz

Danielle Ward Mason

BLUME FORTE CHATHAM, N.J.

SANDERS PHILLIPS GARDEN CITY, N.Y.

Adam Malone

Louanne Masry

MALONE LAW OFFICE ATLANTA

MASRY LAW FIRM WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIF.

Mark Mandell

Judy Massong

MANDELL BOISCLAIR PROVIDENCE, R.I.

DIAMOND MASSONG SEATTLE

Steven Marks

M. Kirk Mathis

PODHURST ORSECK MIAMI

CHANDLER MATHIS LUFKIN, TEXAS

David Marsh

David Mazie

MARSH RICKARD BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

MAZIE SLATER ROSELAND, N.J.

Amy Rose Martel

Katherine McArthur

CHIHAK & MARTEL SAN DIEGO

MCARTHUR LAW FIRM MACON, GA.

Annika Martin

Niall McCarthy

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

COTCHETT PITRE BURLINGAME, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

163

Thomas Giuffra RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA R UFFO & PLOTKIN (NEW YORK)

500

THOMAS GIUFFRA THOMAS GIUFFRA EXEMPLIFIES THE PATTERN

of excellence and personal dedication required for inclusion on Lawdragon’s guide to Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers. The New York-based Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin name partner has amassed an impressive record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements across a wide range of personal injury, medical malpractice, and product liability cases. Giuffra’s diverse caseload also includes sexual harassment claims; he is currently representing one of the victims of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Giuffra was inspired to join the legal profession by his father, a trial lawyer on the defense side with whom Giuffra worked before realizing his passion would be to help plaintiffs. Giuffra excels by making personal connections with his clients and by bringing that same genuine approach to the courtroom. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice? Thomas Giuffra: My practice encompasses all aspects of personal injury law including medical malpractice, general personal injury, and environmental exposure. I also maintain a practice involving claims of sexual harassment and human rights violations. Essentially, I handle nearly every type of personal injury case imaginable which involves a catastrophic injury or a deprivation of a person’s rights. While the cases are all different, the responsibility is the same, to seek accountability from those who have caused my clients harm or violated their rights and to obtain the best possible result for them. LD: How did you ﬁrst become interested in developing this type of practice? TG: My father was a trial lawyer who handled product liability, admiralty, and general personal injury defense. He enjoyed developing a strategy to try his cases. He liked to seek out the opinions of others and ask the “person on the street” about their feelings about certain issues that were involved in his cases. He would do this to try to identify issues that would resonate or not with jurors. Our family would discuss his cases over the dinner table and debate the pros and cons of the case. Growing up with a father who was a trial lawyer inspired me to pursue trial practice. I worked as a clerk at my father’s ﬁrm all through law school and for two years after I graduated. However, I discovered very early on in my career that I

PHOTO BY: JAY BRENNER

BY JOHN RYAN identified more with plaintiffs than I did with the big corporations and insurance companies that the firm represented. This led me to make the very difficult decision to leave my father’s firm and pursue a career representing plaintiffs. I believe that this was the best decision that I have made in my career. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What keeps you excited about it? TG: My grandparents were all immigrants. They arrived in this country after World War I when the United States was not particularly welcoming to immigrants from Italy and Ireland. Nevertheless, they persevered and through hard work and devotion to family they educated my parents and were responsible for helping them realize the American Dream. A large number of my clients remind me of my grandparents in that they work hard and are struggling to build better lives for themselves and their families. They come to me for help when they have been injured or their rights have been abused by those in authority and their ability to realize their dream has been limited. I believe that by acting on behalf of people who have never had anybody to speak on their behalf and to obtain justice for them is a tremendous responsibility. I take great satisfaction in knowing that I have helped many catastrophically injured people and their families be empowered to live the best possible lives they can after a life changing loss. The type of work I do is very personal. As a personal injury lawyer, you get to know the client and their families and share the ups and downs of their lives. You become a friend and a confidant. I make an effort to get to know my clients and to try to understand their lives and what is important to them. I also try to fully understand how their problems have impacted their lives and to attempt to remedy them as best as I can. I do feel satisfied when I have handled a case that I know will take care of a person’s needs for the remainder of their lives and that as a result they will be free from the worry and anxiety of knowing how they will take care of themselves. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled? TG: I think probably the most interesting case that

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

165

500 166

Craig McClellan

Matthew McNicholas

MCCLELLAN LAW FIRM SAN DIEGO

MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS LOS ANGELES

James McCrorie

Patrick McNicholas

LAW OFFICE OF JAMES MCCRORIE NEW YORK

MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS LOS ANGELES

James McEldrew

Ted Meadows

MCELDREW YOUNG PHILADELPHIA

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Randi McGinn

Michelle Mears

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

AKINMEARS HOUSTON

Christopher McGrath

Andje Medina

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.Y.

ALTAIR LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Patrick McGroder*

Frank Melton

BEUS GILBERT PHOENIX

NEWSOME & MELTON ORLANDO

Cynthia McGuinn

Marco Mercaldo

ROUDA FEDER SAN FRANCISCO

MERCALDO LAW FIRM TUCSON, ARIZ.

Thomas McManus

Ron Mercaldo

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

MERCALDO LAW FIRM TUCSON, ARIZ.

Randy McMurray

Sally Metcalfe

MCMURRAY HENRIKS LOS ANGELES

METCALFE LAW AUSTIN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THE TYPE OF WORK I DO IS VERY PERSONAL. AS A PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER, YOU GET TO KNOW THE CLIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND SHARE THE UPS AND DOWNS OF THEIR LIVES. YOU BECOME A FRIEND AND A CONFIDANT. I have tried is one that I handled a few years ago in Brooklyn. The case involved a woman who sustained severe neck injuries while riding the iconic Coney Island Cyclone Roller Coaster. This case was interesting because it involved attacking the safety of a New York City landmark which had been in operation since the 1920s. What I discovered about the roller coaster was that there had been many prior injuries but no successful plaintiffs. Through very detailed investigation, I discovered that the operator of the roller coaster had been making repairs and modifications for years without filing for permits or having inspections performed. The repairs and modifications were designed by a man who did not even finish grade school and had no business designing roller coasters or determining necessary repairs. I then retained an expert in roller coasters, which was difficult to find since most of them were beholden to the amusement industry. By working with him and other experts I put together the case which demonstrated that the first big drop of the coaster was extraordinarily dangerous. I tried the case and the jury returned a very large verdict. I subsequently visited the Cyclone and realized that the first drop had been completely changed and as a result the forces put on the rider were still thrilling but now safe.

sure in a New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) building. NYCHA has had problems with lead in its buildings for years. It is the single largest landlord in New York City. However, it views its responsibility towards its tenants in a very lackadaisical way, which impacts the quality of life of the people who reside in its properties. Unfortunately lead in NYCHA buildings is a problem that has gone on for years. New York City banned lead paint in 1960. It was one of the first municipalities to do so. However, lead paint continues to be a big problem in NYCHA buildings 60 years after it was banned. I find this to be outrageous and recently the agency has been under fire for the way it handles lead paint.

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice with the matters keeping you busy these days?

I tried a case on behalf of a very nice little girl who was born with all the opportunities that life could provide her. She was developing well and ﬂourishing in school until she was diagnosed with lead poisoning. Her apartment was inspected and lead violations were issued. However, once the violations were issued, NYCHA refused to abate and denied there was even lead in the apartment. My client had a very strong mother who rather than subject her child to further harm uprooted her entire family and moved into a shelter until a judge ﬁnally forced NYCHA to abate the apartment.

TG: My practice seems to have become more diverse in the types of cases that I handle. I have realized that the fact patterns that I am presented with are more complicated and require more creativity than in the past. I have also seen a big increase in sexual harassment and civil rights claims. My medical malpractice caseload has increased quite a bit while the less complex matters such as auto have decreased. I attribute the latter to safer cars with more safety protection decreasing injuries.

Sadly, the damage from the exposure caused my client to have signifi cant learning problems and her bright future was no longer a possibility without extensive supports. I retained leading experts in the field and convinced the jury of the significance of the harm caused by the lead paint. The Defense attorneys were excellent and they put on a very strong defense. However, the collegeeducated jury returned a $58M verdict in favor of my client.

I recently tried a lead poisoning case involving a child who sustained brain injuries as a result of lead expo-

LD: What were the key challenges of successfully representing the client in this instance?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

167

500 TG: The biggest challenge in this case was that the building was constructed after lead paint was banned in New York City. The defense took the position that it was a false positive result even though there were multiple positive findings in this and other units in the building. I made the very simple argument that lead was not banned in New Jersey and the surrounding counties until after the building was constructed and that a contractor could have very easily just put it on the walls. I argued that NYCHA should have inspected the paint that was on the walls and failed to. LD: What is the impact on the client or the industry from this matter? TG: I have handled lead poisoning cases for most of my career. It has been a particular interest of mine because it is so easily avoided and the impact on children is severe. When I started working on lead cases lead poisoning was defined as a lead level of 20 mcg/dl or above. My firm would not take cases with lower levels. As time progressed and scientific knowledge developed, the CDC now considers a lead level of 5 mcg/dl to be lead poisoning and it recognizes that there are no truly safe lead levels.

TG: I studied History at Boston College. My area of particular interest was post-colonial Africa. In my studies, I learned how power and law could be misused to harm others. I recognized that in countries without a strong rule of law nobody can feel secure. B.C. encourages its students to live lives of conviction and service. I believed that being a lawyer would enable me to follow my convictions and also serve my community. LD: Why did you pursue a career in the law in the first place? TG: The biggest influence in my life was my father. He was a trial lawyer and continued working until he was 80. He always enjoyed the practice of law and particularly relished the challenges and strategy of legal practice. My siblings and I grew up around the law. Three of us became lawyers and it was in large part due to the inspiration of my father that I chose the law as my career. When I realized that playing second base for the Yankees was not in the cards for me, law became the logical choice. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose your law school over another law school?

Shortly after the verdict there was a big controversy regarding lead paint in NYCHA buildings. There have been some, not enough, efforts to ﬁnally get the lead out of NYCHA buildings. I will be gratiﬁed when this is no longer an issue. The children deserve a safe place to grow up in and all the opportunities possible. They should not be deprived of this based on an ill-led and poorly run government agency.

TG: I knew that I wanted to be a trial lawyer before I went to law school. I wanted to go to a school that produced outstanding trial lawyers. I decided to attend St. John’s University School of Law because it was widely known for producing some of the ﬁnest trial lawyers in the United States. It was also one of the few schools at the time that offered a civil trial program as opposed to only a moot court program.

LD: Is there a speciﬁc lesson from this work or is there anything from it you will ﬁnd especially memorable?

LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?

TG: One of the most memorable parts of this case was the client’s mother. She was a very intelligent and involved member of her community and served on several community organizations. After the successful verdict, she worked with local legislators to develop a law named after her child to require all landlords to inspect and certify the absence of lead paint in their buildings. This law would eliminate a plague which has affected generations of children. This lady was so inspired by the justice system that she decided that she wanted to become a lawyer herself. I was privileged to write her a law school recommendation and thrilled when she recently told me that she was starting her ﬁrst year in law school.

TG: Don’t just follow the money. You should pursue what appeals to you and ﬁnd an area of practice in which you will feel that you are making a difference and enjoy. A law career lasts a long time and you should do something that you feel passionate about.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law?

168

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? TG: I always tell people that the best mentor that I had was my father. Every day I use things that he taught me in my practice from writing to how to conduct a deposition. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? TG: The responsibilities and challenges have become greater.

500

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? TG: I represent one of the victims of Harvey Weinstein. Of many people that I have represented, she stands out as a personal favorite. My client has gone through complete and utter hell. I admire her because, despite that, she is a wonderful person who is positive and moves forward despite the adversity she was

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the ofﬁce? TG: My favorite activity outside the law is spending time with my wife and son. We all share a love of skiing and we spend as much time as possible at our home in Utah skiing the many resorts of the Wasatch Mountains. I ﬁnd skiing is a lot like trial practice, you have to strategize before each run and take into consideration all the hazards that will make a successful

ONE OF MY EARLY BOSSES USED TO SAY THAT, “IN ORDER TO WIN A CASE, A JURY HAS TO BELIEVE YOU AND LIKE YOU.” HIS INSIGHT IS VERY TRUE. subjected to. She is concerned not just about herself but about others who were similarly victimized. I have never seen such bravery displayed by one of my clients. Despite being attacked in the media by Weinstein’s henchmen, she continues to advocate for herself and others with courage and dignity. I admire her determination to stand up for what is right and to make a difference in the future. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? Or, how do you think others see you?

run possible. It is also liberating to be in the fresh air. However, there have been times when I have found myself discussing a case on the phone while on a chairlift in a snowstorm. Unfortunately, this is one of the problems of modern technology. I also enjoy coaching my son’s little league team and trying to teach the younger generation the lessons I learned in the 1980s. My contribution to the local league will be the return of the cross seam/two seam fast ball!

TG: I think my style as a lawyer is that I do not try to “act” like a lawyer. In the courtroom, I try to be myself. Many lawyers like to use ﬂowery language and SAT words to advocate. I tend to do the opposite and try to connect with the jury in a common-sense manner with logic. I think that jurors perceive me as a friendly person who is approachable and trustworthy. I think that enables them to connect with me and ultimately with my client. I have won several cases where the jury did not care for my client but found in their favor because they liked me and believed that my argument made the most sense. One of my early bosses, used to say that, “In order to win a case, a jury has to believe you and like you.” His insight is very true and is something I share with all my clients.

LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? Please tell us what you ﬁnd meaningful about your time serving them.

I think the practice of law is an honor and that an attorney should conduct themselves with integrity. I believe that I am perceived by the defense bar as an honorable and trustworthy adversary who will ﬁght them to the ends of the earth, but will never do anything dishonorable. In fact, many of the cases referred to me come from former adversaries or members of the defense bar.

LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system?

TG: Every year I take on a small pro-bono case on behalf of people who cannot afford a lawyer to advocate on their behalf. These cases have included landlord tenant disputes and unemployment appeals and similar smaller claims. While many attorneys would view these claims as minor, to the people involved they are very signiﬁcant life disputes. I get a great deal of satisfaction helping people who cannot afford my services or that of any other lawyer, and obtaining a favorable outcome for them. For me it is my responsibility to help those less fortunate gain access to the justice system.

TG: Hands down “The Verdict”! LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? TG: I think I would be either a History professor or ski bum!

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

169

500 170

Tom Methvin

Emily Hawk Mills

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

CUSIMANO ROBERTS GADSDEN, ALA.

Andrew Meyer

Matthew Minner

LUBIN & MEYER BOSTON

HARE WYNN LEXINGTON, KY.

Robert Michael

Robert Mongeluzzi

SHADOAN & MICHAEL ROCKVILLE, MD.

SALTZ MONGELUZZI PHILADELPHIA

Donald Migliori

Elizabeth Montesano

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.J.

Dee Miles

A. Elicia Montoya

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Liza Milgrim

Carlos Moore

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.J.

THE COCHRAN FIRM HYATTSVILLE, MD.

Betsy Miller

Jennifer Moore

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

MOORE LAW GROUP LOUISVILLE, KY.

Michael Miller

Mike Moore

THE MILLER FIRM ORANGE, VA.

MIKE MOORE LAW FIRM FLOWOOD, MISS.

Ronald Miller

Thomas Moore*

MILLER & ZOIS BALTIMORE

KRAMER DILLOF NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

John Morgan

Howard Nations

MORGAN & MORGAN ORLANDO

THE NATIONS LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Mary Ann Morgan

C. Richard Newsome

MORGAN TRIAL LAW WINTER PARK, FLA.

NEWSOME & MELTON ORLANDO

J. Kevin Morrison

Marie Ng

ALTAIR LAW SAN FRANCISCO

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

Jane Morrow

Nanci Nishimura

OTOROWSKI MORROW BAINBRIDGE, WASH.

COTCHETT PITRE BURLINGAME, CALIF.

Alan Mortensen

Harold Nix

DEWSNUP KING SALT LAKE CITY

NIX PATTERSON DAINGERFIELD, TEXAS

Elizabeth Mulvey

Leslie Nixon

CROWE & MULVEY BOSTON

NIXON VOGELMAN MANCHESTER, N.H.

Marion Munley

John Norman

MUNLEY MUNLEY SCRANTON, PA.

NORMAN & EDEM OKLAHOMA CITY

Francis Patrick Murphy

Stephanie O’Connor

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

DOUGLAS & LONDON NEW YORK

Kathleen Nastri

Leigh O’Dell

KOSKOFF KOSKOFF BRIDGEPORT, CONN.

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

171

500

Kenneth T. Lumb CORBOY & DEMETRIO (CHICAGO)

172

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

KENNETH T. LUMB PUBLIC SERVICE IS OF TEN AN

inherent part of a plaintiffs’ practice, particularly at leading firms like Chicago’s Corboy & Demetrio. The firm’s managing partner, Kenneth T. Lumb, has taken that spirit to an even higher level through years of military service and ongoing commitment to U.S. veterans. Lumb served as a Captain in the Army JAG Corps at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., before joining Corboy & Demetrio in 1995. As a reservist, he served again at Walter Reed after being called to active duty following the start of the Iraq war in 2003. The experiences have had a lasting impact on Lumb, who like his fellow partners has amassed a long string of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements for firm clients. He graduated from Notre Dame in 1988 and earned his J.D. from DePaul College of Law in 1991. Lawdragon: Can you talk about why you wanted to do the ROTC program and join the Army? Did you have family members in the military? Kenneth T. Lumb: There certainly is a military background in my family. My grandfather enlisted in the Navy in World War II and served in the Pacific in the Seabees. My father was an Army artillery officer in the ‘50s and my older brother, who also went to Notre Dame on an ROTC scholarship, was an infantry officer in the Army. I guess I’m the black sheep, because I wasn’t a combat arms officer. When I was growing up, my dad was a high school history teacher with a particular interest in military history. There were always military books and magazines laying around, which I found I enjoyed reading. My father used to say that historically there were three noble professions, but he always added the military and teaching to the list. So, the idea of public service was always a given. I think those experiences had much to do with my desire to be an Army officer. LD: When at Notre Dame did you develop an interest in the law, or did this interest develop earlier? KTL: It’s hard to pinpoint because I’ve wanted to be a lawyer or an Army officer for as long as I can remember. At Notre Dame, however, I took several undergraduate constitutional law classes that really galvanized me. I was fascinated by the subject matter and the arguments, and I also found myself rooting for the little guy, Clarence Gideon over the State of Florida, for instance. I think that experience foreshadowed my affinity for representing injured plaintiffs. LD: What did you hope you would be doing with a legal career in the Army?

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

BY JOHN RYAN KTL: It wasn’t until I began applying for an ROTC scholarship in high school that I learned about the JAG Corps and realized I could be a lawyer and an officer. My plan up through my first year of law school was to make a career out of the Army. LD: How did you end up at Corboy & Demetrio? KTL: Either through providence or a happy accident, depending on your outlook. My wife’s family came from the same town in Ireland as Mary Kay Rochford, now Illinois Appellate Court Justice, who is married to Corboy & Demetrio partner Mike Demetrio. As I was finishing my first year of law school, my wife’s aunt gave Mike a call, and suddenly I had an interview to be a law clerk. Other than the time I’ve spent on active duty in the Army, I’ve been here ever since. LD: When did you know that you wanted to become a plaintiffs’ lawyer as opposed to a defense-side lawyer or other type of litigator? KTL: After a summer clerking at Corboy & Demetrio, I knew I wanted to be a trial lawyer representing plaintiffs. It was incredibly exciting to watch Tom Demetrio and Phil Corboy in action. But what left the biggest impression was their compassion for their clients, people experiencing enormous loss and often at the low point of their lives. To be able to help restore some of what was taken away is just enormously gratifying, and that’s why I do this kind of work. LD: Please talk about your tour at the Walter Reed facility. What were your responsibilities? KTL: When I graduated from Notre Dame, I was commissioned an armor second lieutenant but received an educational delay to attend law school. After I graduated from law school and passed the bar, the Army brought me on to active duty in the JAG Corps. I originally requested assignment as a prosecutor with the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, where I was looking forward to jumping out of airplanes, but the Army had other ideas. The JAG Corps personnel folks decided my experience at Corboy & Demetrio fit well with Walter Reed, the defense department’s largest medical center. It didn’t seem nearly as interesting as Ft. Bragg at first but turned out to be an amazing experience, and I ended up spending my entire military career giving legal advice to Army doctors. My first assignment was as the Medical Claims Judge Advocate, which is Army-speak for medical malpractice defense attorney. I represented the Army during the administrative phase of Federal Tort Claims Act cases

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

173

500 arising out of care at Walter Reed and at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and worked with the local U.S. Attorney’s Ofﬁce on claims that were put in suit. I was also the legal advisor to the quality improvement and peer review committees and provided advice on hospital law and federal administrative law.

as the chair of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Military Affairs Committee and the American Association of Justice’s Federal Tort Liability and Military Advocacy Section.

Looking back on that time, the breadth of the experience was just amazing. As a young captain, I routinely met with colonels who were heads of departments to learn about the medicine involved in a case. I’d even get called to watch autopsies in deaths involving care with the potential for litigation.

KTL: While we are best known for representing plaintiffs who are individuals, we also represent businesses. In a recent settlement, we obtained $2.1M for a law firm in an attorney-client contract dispute. The law firm had contracted with a corporation to handle all legal matters surrounding acquisitions of contracts with Volkswagen for the storage of vehicles. The contract was written so the law firm would receive either a set amount per month, or a contingency fee percentage of net income derived from the contract between the corporation and Volkswagen once net income reached a threshold amount. Plaintiff alleged that it was entitled to the contingency fee and we were able to able to secure an equitable settlement for our client.

LD: Very interesting. Did you then rejoin the firm? KTL: When I left active duty in early 1996, Tom and Phil were nice enough to give me a job, but I also stayed active in the Army Reserve for the next 15 years or so, with their enthusiastic support. I was never in a drilling reserve unit but was assigned to Walter Reed as the mobilization backfill for the deputy of the legal office. In peacetime, that generally meant two-to-four weeks of active duty per year to fill in while the deputy was on leave or on temporary duty elsewhere. But soon after the start of the Iraq war in 2003, I was formally mobilized and spent six months at Walter Reed, mostly as the deputy of the JAG office and sometimes as the acting head of the office. Service at a medical center in wartime was entirely different than my earlier experience. Walter Reed was inundated with casualties, and the pace was somewhat frenetic. Military commanders tend to view their lawyers as problem solvers and not strictly as legal advisors, and the range of issues we dealt with was enormous, ranging from the use of deadly force at the installation’s gates to whether Jessica Lynch could accept gifts from the public, and everything in between. One of my favorites was a phone call about a wounded special forces soldier who refused to give up his sidearm. That was an interesting night. One of the main jobs was simply to find creative – but legal – ways for commanders to make the lives of wounded soldiers and their families a little easier. That was important because misusing appropriated funds can land you in jail. That six months was a humbling experience. It was certainly inconvenient to be away from my family for most of that time, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to the sacrifice of those casualties and their families. LD: Can you please tell us about any of your extra-practice or community activities, including your ongoing connection to the military? KTL: Much of my extracurricular activities involve veterans, service members, and their families. I’ve served

174

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Let’s move to what matters are keeping you busy these days. Is there a recent verdict or settlement you can highlight?

LD: What about the months or year ahead? Are there particular cases on which you will be in trial or that will occupy most of your time? KTL: I’m currently busy working on a number of mass tort cases involving numerous consumers with lymphoma related to Roundup and women with ovarian cancer from talcum powder. I’m also getting ready to try a case involving a gasoline pipeline spill that contaminated an entire community’s drinking water supply in central Illinois. LD: Did you seek out the role of managing partner or were you asked to do it? Are there any leadership challenges right now or firm initiatives that you can discuss? KTL: I was appointed managing partner in January 2019. I help guide the overall strategic direction of our firm as well as manage the types of cases we become involved with. In addition, I assist in the training of our young attorneys and in the marketing of our firm. I also help manage our firm’s business operations, ensuring we are employing technology in all aspects of our law practice. There are no leadership challenges at our firm. We are a well-oiled, 65-year-old firm that has a long track record of success. One reason for that success is our firm’s structure. Our firm also has a long history of community service and as managing partner, I want to continue that tradition and include as an initiative community service to our U.S. Veterans. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2019/11/25/lawyerlimelight-kenneth-t-lumb.

500

Van O’Steen

Mike Papantonio*

O’STEEN & HARRISON PHOENIX

LEVIN PAPANTONIO PENSACOLA, FLA.

Ann Oldfather

Roger Pardieck

OLDFATHER LAW FIRM LOUISVILLE, KY.

LAW OFFICE SEYMOUR, IND.

Jack Olender*

Michelle Parfitt

JACK OLENDER LAW FIRM WASHINGTON, D.C.

ASHCRAFT & GEREL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jami Oliver

Lorraine Parker

OLIVER LAW OFFICES DUBLIN, OHIO

PARKER LIPMAN DENVER

David Olsen

C. Cary Patterson

DEWSNUP KING SALT LAKE CITY

NIX PATTERSON TEXARKANA, TEXAS

Alvarene Owens

Jane Paulson

ALVARENE N. OWENS DAYTON, OHIO

PAULSON COLETTI PORTLAND, ORE.

Brian Panish

Rufus Pennington III

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

COKER LAW JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

Pamela Pantages

Jim Perdue Jr.

NURENBERG PARIS CLEVELAND

PERDUE & KIDD HOUSTON

Nicholas Papain

Cheryl Perkins

SULLIVAN PAPAIN NEW YORK

WHETSTONE PERKINS COLUMBIA, S.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

175

Stephen Garcia GARCIA ARTIGLIERE (LONG BEACH, CALIF.)

500

STEPHEN GARCIA STEPHEN GARCIA HAS SPENT HIS LIFE

ﬁghting for the rights of elders, winning over $1B for his clients over the span of his decades-long career. His work has laid crucial groundwork for protecting the rights and the quality of care for the elderly and inﬁrm in this country.

Garcia started out as a criminal lawyer, but found his true calling when a desperate family approached him for assistance in a challenging case and he was able to knock it out of the park for them. His first firm, The Law Office of Stephen M. Garcia, was acquired by a major player in the elder abuse space, Wilkes & McHugh, in 2001. He founded the full service litigation firm Garcia & Artigliere in 2003, which focuses on issues of elder abuse and neglect of elder and infirm adults. Garcia continues to handle multiple cases while setting up his firm to thrive as he makes moves to step down in the coming years. Lawdragon: How did you become interested in developing a practice focused on elder abuse and neglect? Stephen Garcia: Mostly by accident 30 years ago. I am a Mexican American and three decades ago a wonderful Spanish speaking family, Zoila and Jesus Noy, changed the course of my career. They were looking for a lawyer with an office at the beach who spoke Spanish. I took the case and the defense pulled out all the stops forcing us to trial. And we achieved a very significant verdict in favor of the clients. Little did I know at the time that the case was one of the first matters tried pursuant to a new legislative scheme called the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The personal and professional reward for me helping a truly magical family achieve justice when so many others had turned down their case was so fulfilling that I knew I had found my life’s calling. LD: So you really have a passion for what you do! SG: Yes. I help those who feel no strength nor ability to achieve justice against multi-national, multi-billion dollar, corporate behemoths who pillage in their lust for unlawful profit comfortable in their belief that their money and power insulate them from responsibility for their misconduct, receive justice. That’s a game changer and a reason for living! LD: Aside from that case, is there another from your career that stands out as particularly memorable?

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

BY ALISON PREECE SG: We represented the interests of an incredible young mother who was incapacitated for life as the result of the abject failure of an acute care hospital to provide her the most obvious care. As it was an acute care hospital they asserted that they were insulated to $250,000 in non-economic damages per California’s limits on medical malpractice cases. We took the approach that in housing her the hospital was a care custodian of our client and hence the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act applied, with no arbitrary caps. The matter was litigated all the way to the California Supreme Court and we ended up securing a $36.8M award for our client. That has changed the viewpoint of reckless neglect in acute care hospitals and improved the delivery of care as a whole. Acute care hospitals can no longer hide behind an arbitrary cap of damages when they commit reckless neglect of elder and/or dependent adults and that is a game changer. LD: What are some trends in your practice? SG: We are seeing the same bad actors over and over again. One particular provider in California has over 90 long term care facilities, is well known by the State of California to be over $90,000 in arrears on quality taxes, and operates under other licenses when the State of California has rejected his applications time and time again. What we see is that smaller firms can be run out of the case by this self-professed billionaire’s willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid providing the better care his residents deserve were he to spend half that on their care. The trend now is to a nuclear war to bring these modern day baron robbers to task, lasting many years. One really has to have the staying power to overcome these unsavory characters, but that is the way it seems to be moving. We are in year five of litigation attempting to force nursing homes to staff their facilities with sufficient staff to meet the needs of their residents. We recently had a settlement forcing an increase in staffing at the facilities to occur now and into the future. That was a huge win for the elder and infirm residents of these facilities. LD: What were the key challenges in that litigation? SG: Size, time, and money. These cases are overwhelmingly expensive. One must have the resources

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

177

500 to withstand their well-funded legal attacks to bring justice to bear.

me with personal problems, challenges, and life as a rule. I am a lucky guy to have him.

LD: Can you walk us through the impact on the industry from this matter?

LD: Can you share a lawyer you have come up against in a negotiation or case who you admire?

SG: That’s simple, the robber barons are ﬁnally learning that due to diligent and effective legal advocacy from many, they are going to face justice and they will pay. It is far better and simpler and more honorable for them to put the money into a more appropriate level of care to their residents than to pay lawyers. And hence, the civil justice system is invaluable in bringing about important change.

SG: I admire a few defense lawyers, because they are honest. A few names come quickly to mind, Mike Trotter, John Supple, Bill Wilson, Rima Badawiya, Brian Reid, there are certainly others but these ones put integrity to the forefront for sure.

LD: What first led you to pursue a career in law? SG: Having a father and three uncles who were lawyers will traumatize anyone and it did me. LD: Did you have any jobs between undergrad and law school that affected your legal career in some way? SG: I tended bar and waited tables. That taught me how to connect and understand normal people in the normal exercise of life which is an invaluable tool with jurors. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose Loyola University over another law school? SG: Jesuits! LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school? SG: Never, wanted to be a criminal lawyer. I guess in some ways I still am. Over the first seven or so years of my career I was solely a criminal lawyer. I am in a far different sea at this point.

LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? SG: Aggressive, very aggressive, and honest. I will not pursue a case for a shakedown or if I do not fully believe in its merit. That causes us to walk away from a significant amount of money but it is the right thing to do. LD: What are some of the challenges you face in your leadership role at Garcia & Artigliere? SG: I never worked for a firm so I have no idea how to do it. As we’ve grown to a large firm that has become a constant and evolving challenge. We are grooming some to replace me and for us to become a firm less centered upon my involvement and more on cultural sustainability. When recruiting, we sell our culture. We should probably have double the staff we have but then we would not be the family we are. By being small we are also able to pay unmatched salaries and help our staff as a family helps one another in life’s endeavors. LD: Has your style of management changed? SG: Yes, I was a temperamental ass at the beginning. I am more of a grandpa now.

LD: Was there a course or professor from law school that was particularly memorable?

LD: What are some interests you have outside the ofﬁce?

SG: Professor Alan Ides and Constitutional Law. Fascinating. My son just took it and I loved even now talking about the issues with him.

SG: I follow my kids around in their endeavors and snow ski, I snow ski a lot. Also, I have sat on a number of boards and even founded a charity which now thrives. Once one has all they require, it is an obligation of a fair and just society to give back, in my judgment.

LD: What advice do you have now for law students? SG: Know why you are going to law school. You are about to incur over $100,000 in debt. Be true to yourself and have a compelling reason for doing so. Know what you want to do ASAP, then clerk, clerk, and clerk to learn the practice you wish to enter. LD: Do you have any mentors? SG: Judge Victor Chavez of the Los Angeles Superior Court. He was, and remains, my idol. Near 90 and still sits on the Bench bringing down his own brand of stern, yet fair, justice. He has done that for me all of my almost 60 years as a father ﬁgure to me helping

178

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? SG: I would be a snow ski instructor working for the race department at a mountain somewhere far into the back country! LD: Is there a larger takeaway you can share from the work you’ve done over the years? SG: Honor our elders as they are the bedrock upon which all of us came.

500

Peter Perlman

Joseph Power

PETER PERLMAN LAW OFFICES LEXINGTON, KY.

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Craig Peters

Thomas Power

ALTAIR LAW SAN FRANCISCO

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Kathleen Flynn Peterson*

Gary Praglin

CIRESI CONLIN MINNEAPOLIS

COTCHETT PITRE SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

Roberta Pichini

Joseph Quinn

FELDMAN SHEPHERD PHILADELPHIA

HOURIGAN KLUGER KINGSTON, PA.

Matthew Piers

Michelle Quinn

HUGHES SOCOL CHICAGO

HOURIGAN KLUGER KINGSTON, PA.

Frank Pitre

Troy Rafferty

COTCHETT PITRE BURLINGAME, CALIF.

LEVIN PAPANTONIO PENSACOLA, FLA.

James Pizzirusso

Jeffrey Rasansky

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

RASANSKY LAW FIRM DALLAS

Aaron Podhurst

Rahul Ravipudi

PODHURST ORSECK MIAMI

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

Scott Powell

Patrick Regan

HARE WYNN BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

REGAN ZAMBRI WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

179

500 180

Melissa Rhea

Catherine McNicholas Rothenberger

OLENDER & ASSOCIATES WASHINGTON, D.C.

KOLSBY GORDON PHILADELPHIA

Joseph Rice

Steve Rotman

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

HAUSFELD BOSTON

David Ring

Courtney Rowley

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

ROWLEY LAW FIRM OJAI, CALIF.

Cindy Robinson

Ben Rubinowitz

TREMONT SHELDON BRIDGEPORT, CONN.

GAIR GAIR NEW YORK

Mark Robinson

Ellsworth Rundlett

ROBINSON CALCAGNIE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.

CHILDS RUNDLETT PORTLAND, MAINE

Larry Rogers Jr.

Patrick Salvi

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Larry Rogers Sr.*

Patrick Salvi II

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Susan Corner Rosen

Elise Sanguinetti

ROSEN LAW FIRM CHARLESTON, S.C.

ARIAS SANGUINETTI EMERYVILLE, CALIF.

Stephen Rosenthal

Diana Santa Maria

PODHURST ORSECK MIAMI

LAW OFFICES OF DIANA SANTA MARIA DAVIE, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

John “Jack” Scarola

Christopher Seeger

SEARCY DENNEY WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

Melissa Scartelli

Scott Segal

SCARTELLI & DISTASIO SCRANTON, PA.

SCOTT SEGAL CHARLESTON, W.V.

Fred Schenk

Joseph Sellers

CASEY GERRY SAN DIEGO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Richard Schoenberg

Derek Sells

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

THE COCHRAN FIRM PHILADELPHIA

Marisa Schouten

Anthony Shapiro

MARTIN WALKER TYLER, TEXAS

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

Susan Schwartz

Adam Shea

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

James Schwebel

Loretta Sheehan

SCHWEBEL GOETZ MINNEAPOLIS

DAVIS LEVIN HONOLULU

Thomas Scolaro

Carol Nelson Shepherd

LEESFIELD SCOLARO MIAMI

FELDMAN SHEPHERD PHILADELPHIA

Christian Searcy*

William Shernoff

SEARCY DENNEY WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

SHERNOFF BIDART CLAREMONT, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

181

Based in a town of just a little over 5,000 people about two hours east of Dallas – and best known as the birthplace of Eagles singer Don Henley – the firm has represented more than 17,000 clients, many of whom have been harmed by safety violations in the trucking industry. In 2019, Goudarzi obtained a $140M settlement, the largest in American history for a singleplaintiff case, for a 39-year-old man whose arms and legs were paralyzed after an 18-wheeler collided with his vehicle. The firm routinely sets new records in trucking accident recoveries. A past president of the East Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Goudarzi serves on the national advisory board of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America, which works to reduce traffic deaths and injuries caused by violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Brent Goudarzi GOUDARZI & YOUNG (GILMER, TEXAS)

BRENT GOUDARZI BY KATRINA DEWEY

BRENT GOUDARZI WAS JUST A BOY WHEN

his parents left Iran and the tumult of the 1979 revolution to return to Gilmer, the northeast Texas town where his mother grew up. Not only was he the sole dark-complected student in his school, a challenge in itself, his father was Iranian at a time when American sentiment against the Middle Eastern nation was running high due to the year-long detention of hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. “I had to be a little smarter, quicker, faster than everybody else just to survive,” he recalls. Though athletic, he was routinely the smallest guy on the team. “I’ve always been the underdog,” Goudarzi says. “I had to out-work, out-think whoever my competition was.” It’s an ethic he took with him into his career, founding the ﬁrm of Goudarzi & Young with his cousin, Marty, in 1997 after completing his undergraduate and law degrees at Texas Tech University. 182

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“What I’ve learned is there’s a way to try cases, depending on who your audience is,” Goudarzi says. “And we’ve been blessed. I’m blessed to have surrounded myself with probably the best trial team in the nation. Last year, we had $415M in verdicts.” Lawdragon: That’s why I’m sitting here. It’s extremely impressive. So tell me more about your approach to these cases, including the $140M settlement. Brent Goudarzi: Tenacity, hard work, preparation: We take very effective depositions. It’s also about the defendant knowing that not only do you have the resources, you have the determination to have your clients fully compensated and that you won’t stop short of receiving full justice for your clients. I don’t care who you are. You have to continually prove yourself because there is always somebody who thinks, “Well, maybe it’s time for Brent Goudarzi to slow down. Maybe it’s time for him to reap the rewards of decades of trying cases.” And it’s just not me. I’m at home in a courtroom. The most relaxed I am is in a courtroom. I love the warfare, and that’s what it is. I don’t go to the courthouse to make friends with my opponents. I go there to win. It’s a zero-sum game and we play it that way. LD: You’ve developed an amazing practice. BG: Well, I’m blessed. But it’s because I have such a good team. A lot of people ask me why I still do what I do. It’s because I love it. And I want to be doing this until I can’t. I grew up watching some great lawyers in this area. One was Scotty Baldwin, who tried the ﬁrstever asbestos case. And then there was a gentleman by the name of Franklin Jones who was a railroad, Federal Employees Liability Act, lawyer.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

LD: You would go to court and watch them? BG: Sure. And I tracked the career of Joe Jamail, the small Middle-Eastern guy known as the “King of Torts,” who just wouldn’t take no for an answer. That’s what I’ve done throughout my life. And even now, there are lawyers around this nation who give me somebody to compete against, whether they’re in New York or California. I’m in touch with a lot of those guys, and we talk about their results and they ask me about my results and say, “How do you get those results, Goudarzi?” It’s partly about how you ﬁnd the case. I really think in today’s multimedia environment that people are more educated, they get information quicker. And it’s our role to get as much information as we can in the short amount of time that the judge gives us in front of a jury. LD: Do you think it’s that sense of responsibility among jurors that makes this such a great region for plaintiffs? BG: We’re blessed here in Northeast Texas with some of the great trial titans of Texas history. Again, Scotty Baldwin, Franklin Jones – and many more. And there’s always something you can learn from watching other good lawyers. That’s what I’ve done through the years: Read their transcripts, read books that they’ve read. But I truly think everybody has to be true to themselves. You have to develop your own style; you can’t be anybody else. LD: So many of the really great trial lawyers that I’ve interviewed talk about that process. They want the transcripts. They’ve read everything. They go to court. They watch other lawyers. Only then do they really know enough to apply it in their own way. BG: Right. No question. And what I’ve found is what works here in Northeast Texas has worked for me in Galveston, Texas. Has worked for us in the Panhandle. Has worked for us in Dallas, Houston, wherever we’re at. As long as you’re sincere, you work hard and you’re over-prepared and you have the tenacity. And that’s what you have to have to win, to see the case to the end. When I’m getting paid the numbers that we routinely get paid, you’re dealing with some of the best defense ﬁrms and defense lawyers in the nation. And it’s sort of harder now. When I was in my 30s and early 40s, I would sneak up on some lawyers, but it’s harder now at 50 with the track record we have. LD: People do their homework. When you were going to law school, did you know you wanted to be a trial lawyer? BG: From junior high I wanted to be a trial lawyer. I would read about these lawyers growing up, whether it was in the Texas Monthly magazine or the Dallas Morning News

or local periodicals. And it was inspiring to me, and I always wanted to reach that level of success. Take what Harold Nix did: He single-handedly took on one of the biggest manufacturing plants here in East Texas, Lone Star Steel. He parlayed that into being one of five lawyers chosen to represent Texas in securing a $17.6B settlement from the tobacco industry, the largest settlement that had ever happened up until that point. And I will tell you to this day, from time to time, I call Mr. Nix and will ask him for advice. And he’s always been gracious and will give me whatever time and whatever wisdom I need. LD: That’s amazing. He’s done such inspiring work, and I know he has a reputation as a philanthropist. BG: In this position, I think we have a great duty to give back to the community so that the community sees trial lawyers who advocate making a difference – truly making a difference – in their communities. Whether it be through charitable giving or taking cases pro bono, and we do that. I have sued some law enforcement groups because from time to time, there’s a bad officer who takes advantage of some group. We’ve taken on a lot of cases where we don’t charge. But again, it’s because I love the job. LD: And you obviously love this community, too. BG: I do. LD: You mentioned communities and public perception, which is constantly changing. How do you see social standards affecting verdicts and awards? BG: Juries definitely seem to be giving out larger awards, and I think it has a great deal to do with social media and what people see on the news, how we get our information. For instance, when I’m in Houston, I drive past cars that cost $400,000 or $500,000 on my way to the courthouse. Jurors drive by houses that cost millions and sometimes even tens of millions. So when you talk about someone who has been killed or been left paraplegic, quadriplegic or severely burned, it’s easy for them to envision awarding large amounts of cash as compensation because they see how wealth affects quality of life every day. When I look at the jurors and I say “This man or this woman is entitled to receive X amount of dollars,” it resonates with them because they see it every day. LD: The dollars don’t scare them anymore. BG: No, not like they used to. LD: You’re spot on about the role social media plays in that. I think another thing it has done is make all

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

183

500

Mitchell Shore

Michael Smith

KOLSBY GORDON PHILADELPHIA

LESSER LESSER WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Alexander Shunnarah

R. Allen Smith

ALEXANDER SHUNNARAH BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

THE SMITH LAW FIRM RIDGELAND, MISS.

William Sieben

Ruth Smith

SCHWEBEL GOETZ MINNEAPOLIS

ELMORE & SMITH ASHEVILLE, N.C.

Philip Sieff

Todd Smith

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Roman Silberfeld* ROBINS KAPLAN LOS ANGELES

Susan Silvernail MARSH RICKARD BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Thomas Siracusa POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Hezekiah Sistrunk Jr.

184

SMITH LACIEN CHICAGO

William Smith ABRAMSON SMITH SAN FRANCISCO

Kathryn Snapka SNAPKA FIRM CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

Thomas Sobol HAGENS BERMAN BOSTON

Alison Soloff

THE COCHRAN FIRM ATLANTA

SOLOFF & ZERVANOS PHILADELPHIA

Michael Slack

Amy Fisch Solomon

SLACK & DAVIS AUSTIN

JUDICATE WEST LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

of us more aware, in general, of difficulties that have befallen classmates or other people we’ve known along the way. There’s just a greater recognition that people out there are injured or ill, people we know. BG: True. And the internet and social media have also aided consumers in finding the right lawyer, partly because they have at their fingertips our resumes, our accomplishments. And that’s something they didn’t have 15 years ago. They would just go hire the closest lawyer they might have heard something good about. Now they can do a web search to find out, say, if Brent Goudarzi has fought Werner trucking, and if he did, what kind of results did he get? LD: That really helps people make smarter, more informed decisions. BG: No question. Of course, there’s also a downside to it. Because sometimes an unscrupulous lawyer will make false claims, advertising accomplishments that aren’t genuine, and the consumer doesn’t know. Another thing that bothers me, and I’ve encountered it time and time again, whether I’m mediating in Texas or New York or Chicago, are insurance executives who say, “We’re not used to paying the numbers that you routinely get. And if we see 100 cases, 99 of them go away for a much lower level than what you are demanding today.” Then, the fight becomes the process of educating them on why these other lawyers are underselling their cases and why they’re going to pay my clients maximum compensation for their injuries and losses. LD: The numbers you get are astounding. And in the trucking sector, it seems like the accidents are so horrific and the safety issues are profound. Awards as big as the ones you’re getting in these cases really make people start paying attention. BG: I know for a fact that the transportation industry pays attention to the results my office gets, and it has already effectuated change in some of the biggest transportation companies in the nation. I know that because I talked to defense lawyers whom I deal with on a routine basis and they tell me. Now that being said, the problem in today’s society, within the transportation industry, is if you have a pulse and a commercial driver’s license, there’s going to be some trucking company that will hire you. Happens every day. So again, we need lawyers to take the time to do the appropriate amount of discovery and put the puzzle together. Once you know the law, and we clearly do, it’s easy to use it to show that this accident

didn’t have to happen. Had they followed the rules, had they followed the laws and the regulations, we wouldn’t be sitting here today. LD: Tell me a little more about the people at your firm, like your partner, Marty Young. BG: He’s my first cousin. We grew up like brothers. He was an undergraduate when I was in law school and we just stair-stepped our way through. I’ve had no better trial companion. I mean, his instincts are always spot on, and again, have allowed me to reach whatever level of success I have. I couldn’t have done it without him. LD: It’s neat that you’re family, right? BG: Sure, we can get into it and then five minutes later, we’re over it. We’re that kind of family. LD: Which means you have someone willing to ask you the tough questions, to say, “Are you positive about this one?” BG: No question. He’s been my best sounding board. LD: Walking through the hall here, there’s so much activity; the staff is so busy and there are clients coming in and out. I think it gets lost among lawyers sometimes how many people there are out here who need help, who have experienced horrible things and need good attorneys. BG: What I think all lawyers should be reminded of daily is that even if we have 700 files in our office, each one of those files is the number one problem in that client’s life, and we are the custodian of their future. They bring it to us, and they expect us to treat them like family and to pour our heart and our mind into that case to get them the best result possible. I take every case like I’m representing my own family member, and I want to treat that individual the way we would want to be treated. LD: It’s probably easier to keep that in mind when you’re sitting in the middle of a community like this and you walk down the street and you know the people. BG: I always tell the jury, “I’m just a small-town cowboy lawyer.” It doesn’t matter where I’m trying that case, I remind them of that. And many times I look at the defendants I’m suing, their experts or their corporate representatives, and say, “So, it took Brent Goudarzi from little Gilmer, Texas, to show you this problem within your company.” And usually, by the end of the case, at least one of them will thank me for bringing it to their attention so they can make sure it doesn’t happen again.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

185

Jason Itkin ARNOLD & ITKIN (HOUSTON)

500

JASON ITKIN FEW PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYERS SECURE AS MANY

high-value verdicts and settlements over their entire careers as Jason Itkin has since starting his own ﬁrm in 2004 with his former University of Texas law school classmate, Kurt Arnold. Itkin’s accomplishments have been recognized by earning selection to The Inner Circle of Advocates, an organization of the nation’s top 100 plaintiffs’ lawyers, before the age of 40. In addition to achieving record-setting verdicts and settlements in a wide range of cases around the country, the Houston-based lawyers and Lawdragon 500 members established the Arnold & Itkin Foundation to further assist victims suffering from catastrophic injuries and their families. Lawdragon: What is the secret to taking on bigger ﬁrms and corporations and winning? Jason Itkin: When I get involved in a case the stakes are sky high. My clients cannot afford to lose. Fortunately, the behavior of the defendants usually makes winning more likely. It amazes me how often big companies refuse to help people they have hurt, and worse yet – treat them like criminals. Juries pay attention to how businesses treat people and whether they are willing to take responsibility for their conduct. When we get really big verdicts – the record setting verdicts – the jury is usually disgusted by the behavior of the defendant. That said, winning is never easy. To beat these big companies, you need to be willing to invest a lot of

BY JOHN RYAN time and money. We have built a track-record of winning multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements by doing just that. Corporate defendants know we have the resources and skills to see a case to conclusion. They also know that we are not afraid to try cases. LD: Can you describe a recent case you’ve handled to trial or settlement resolution, and what the impact of the case might be? JI: Last year we tried a Risperdal case in Philadelphia. Risperdal is an antipsychotic drug made by Johnson & Johnson. J&J marketed the drug off-label to kids, and one of the many side effects of Risperdal is that it can cause boys to develop female breasts. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson paid a $2.2B in civil and criminal fines to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice over the off-label marketing. But, the government received that money, not the kids who were hurt by the drug. We are fighting for the boys who were injured by Risperdal. There are thousands of boys across the country dealing with this deformation, which makes it nearly impossible to live a normal life. The case we won last July – for an autistic young man from Tennessee – was only the fifth case to go before a jury in a massive action that counts for more than 18,500 claims filed against J&J. At $76M, the judgement in that case was the largest in the tort to date. LD: Looking back, what advice do you have for law school students?

IT AMAZES ME HOW OFTEN BIG COMPANIES REFUSE TO HELP PEOPLE THEY HAVE HURT, AND WORSE YET – TREAT THEM LIKE CRIMINALS. JURIES PAY ATTENTION TO HOW BUSINESSES TREAT PEOPLE AND WHETHER THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CONDUCT. WHEN WE GET REALLY BIG VERDICTS…THE JURY IS USUALLY DISGUSTED BY THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DEFENDANT. PHOTO BY: JULIE SOEFER

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

187

500

THERE ARE A LOT OF CAREER PATHS FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE A TRIAL LAWYER…I LIKE TO REMIND YOUNG LAWYERS THAT TO BE SUCCESSFUL YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO START YOUR CAREER AS AN ASSOCIATE AT A BIG LAW FIRM. WHEN I SPEAK TO LAW STUDENTS ABOUT HOW WE STARTED OUR FIRM, YOU CAN SEE LIGHT BULBS TURNING ON. JI: Law schools rarely give students an inside look at what it actually means to be a lawyer. There are a lot of career paths for someone who wants to be a trial lawyer specifically. And, I like to remind young lawyers that to be successful you do not necessarily need to start your career as an associate at a big law firm. When I speak to law students about how Kurt and I started our firm, you can see light bulbs turning on. Bottom line – if you are ethical and passionate, you will figure out how to make a living doing honorable work. LD: How did you come to start Arnold & Itkin with Kurt Arnold, and what allowed you to be successful at such a young age? JI: Kurt and I were friends in law school, but we became closer after graduation. We ended up working at the same Houston law firm and lived on different floors in the same downtown loft. We were working on important cases for big companies, so we had good opportunities, but neither of us felt particularly inspired by the work. We regularly talked about going out on our own and taking cases we really believed in. During these discussions, Kurt was always scribbling on a yellow legal pad. I never thought much about the scribbles, until one day Kurt turned them into our “task list” for starting a law firm. Once we started executing on our “task list” we never looked back. The thing that allowed us to be successful so young is that we didn’t mind taking big risks and working hard when we knew our clients were right. And we refused to take “no” for an answer. There have been a number of times when people told us we were foolish for rejecting a settlement offer, but we’ve always stuck it out and did what we thought was right. Now, people don’t think we’re crazy anymore.

188

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? JI: First and foremost, I enjoy time with my wife and daughter. Every minute of downtime, I dedicate to them. My wife and I also own Theorem Vineyards in Napa Valley. My wife runs the business, but whenever I have the opportunity, I get out there and get my hands dirty while pretending that I know something about farming and winemaking. LD: What is your favorite book or movie about the justice system? JI: The first movie that comes to mind is “The Rainmaker.” The story of a scrappy young lawyer discovering plaintiff work reminds me a little of starting our firm. I like how the film illustrates the difference between what is taught in law school and what a young lawyer must figure out on his or her own – literally by trial and error. There’s a particular scene that comes to mind where the protagonist takes a bus trip to the insurance company’s corporate headquarters to take depositions. When he gets there, he faces a group of smug, high-paid corporate defense lawyers, and it becomes clear that they mean to stonewall him and waste his time and very limited resources. But, he stands up for himself and lets them know he won’t be intimidated, he won’t be discouraged, and he won’t quit. To circle back to the first question, that’s the quality required to take on big companies and win. You need to show them that you won’t be pushed around. And it doesn’t hurt if maybe people think you’re a little crazy.

500

Christine Spagnoli

Neil Sugarman

GREENE BROILLET SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

SUGARMAN AND SUGARMAN BOSTON

Shanin Specter

Robert Sullivan

KLINE & SPECTER PHILADELPHIA

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.Y.

Gerry Spence*

Lynn Swanson

SPENCE LAW FIRM JACKSON, WYO.

JONES SWANSON NEW ORLEANS

Broadus Spivey*

Paula Fisette Sweeney

SPIVEY & GRIGG AUSTIN

SLACK DAVIS AUSTIN

Robert Spohrer

Dennis Sweet

SPOHRER & DODD JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

SWEET & ASSOCIATES JACKSON, MISS.

Kathryn Stebner

Laura Tamez

STEBNER LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

THE HERRERA LAW FIRM SAN ANTONIO

L. Chris Stewart

John Taylor

STEWART TRIAL ATTORNEYS ATLANTA

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

Larry Stewart*

Lucy Tufts

STEWART TILGHMAN MIAMI

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

Dan Stormer

Nancy Turbak-Berry

HADSELL & STORMER PASADENA, CALIF.

TURBAK LAW OFFICE WATERTOWN, S.D.

Paul Stritmatter

Dawn Vallejos-Nichols

STRITMATTER KESSLER HOQUIAM, WASH.

AVERA & SMITH GAINESVILLE, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

189

500 190

Courtney Van Winkle

Donald Watson

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

GARY WILLIAMS STUART, FLA.

Richard Vollertsen

Mikal Watts

ATKINSON CONWAY ANCHORAGE

WATTS GUERRA CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

Bill Wagner

Ben Weaver

WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN TAMPA, FLA.

WEAVER & WEAVER JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

Aimee Wagstaff

Dianne Jay Weaver

ANDRUS WAGSTAFF LAKEWOOD, COLO.

WEAVER & WEAVER JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

Brent Walker

Les Weisbrod

ALDOUS/WALKER DALLAS

MILLER WEISBROD DALLAS

Derrick Walker

Stephen Weiss

ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN & ALLEN RICHMOND, VA.

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

Mona Lisa Wallace

Harvey Weitz

WALLACE & GRAHAM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

THE COCHRAN FIRM NEW YORK

Mary Anne Walling

Perry Weitz

SULLIVAN PAPAIN GARDEN CITY, N.J.

WEITZ & LUXENBERG NEW YORK

Roderick Ward

Geoffrey Wells

STEVENS & WARD JACKSON, MISS.

GREENE BROILLET SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

Navan Ward Jr.

Gregory Wells

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

SHADOAN & MICHAEL ROCKVILLE, MD.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Jeanmarie Whalen

Matthew Williams

DOMNICK CUNNINGHAM PALM BEACH, FLA.

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Tim Wheeler

Mary Wilson

GREENE BROILLET SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

COWEN RODRIGUEZ SAN ANTONIO

Charles Whetstone

R. Brent Wisner

WHETSTONE PERKINS COLUMBIA, S.C.

BAUM HEDLUND LOS ANGELES

Matthew White

Michael Worel

GRAY & WHITE LOUISVILLE, KY.

DEWSNUP KING SALT LAKE CITY

William Whitehurst*

C. Steven Yerrid*

WHITEHURST HARKNESS AUSTIN

YERRID LAW FIRM TAMPA, FLA.

Reggie Whitten

Kathleen Zellner

WHITTEN BURRAGE OKLAHOMA CITY

ZELLNER & ASSOCIATES DOWNERS GROVE, ILL.

John Eddie Williams

Laura Zois

WILLIAMS HART HOUSTON

MILLER & ZOIS BALTIMORE

Lorenzo Williams GARY WILLIAMS STUART, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

191

GIR ARDI

KEESE

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: Howard B. Miller, John K. Courtney, James G. O’Callahan, Keith D. Griffin, Thomas V. Girardi, David R. Lira, Amy Fisch Solomon, Robert W. Finnerty, John A. Girardi

A national reputation built on helping the little guy Review the National Law Journal’s list of the top 11 plaintiff’s law firms in the country, Lawdragon’s list of the nation’s leading attorneys, or the Los Angeles Daily Journal’s ranking of the city’s best firms or its top 100 lawyers list, and you’ll regularly find Girardi | Keese attorneys named. Recognized for their legal acumen and superb trial skills, the 38 attorneys of Girardi | Keese frequently prevail.

RECORD OF SUCCESS | For more than 40 years, Girardi | Keese

has been at the forefront of injury cases involving physical hurt, property damage or financial harm. Since 1965, the firm has recovered more than $3 billion against some of the world’s largest corporations, including Exxon, Shell, the Ford Motor Company, DuPont and Walt Disney World. Girardi & Keese has also been involved in many groundbreaking verdicts, such as the first $1 million medical malpractice verdict in California in the 1970s, and more recently, the $1.9 billion settlement on behalf of California’s energy customers. Additionally, Tom Girardi was a significant architect of the $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement.

Amy Cantrell

Each win is important because every case represents the health and well-being of individuals in Southern California—the little guy. Individuals who have been harmed in some way are at the heart of Girardi | Keese’s practice, whether the injury was due to medical malpractice, product failure, wrongful termination, vehicle accident or similar wrongdoing. LEADING LAWYERS | This year, three Girardi | Keese lawyers made the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide—founding partner Thomas V. Girardi, David R. Lira and Amy Fisch Solomon.

G K

GIR ARDI

KEESE

LAWYERS

1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 ph: 213.977.0211

fax: 213.481.1554 www.girardikeese.com

155 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 260 San Bernardino, CA 92408 ph: 909.381.1551

Our mission is to ﬁght for our clients with courage, conviction and integrity. Skilled, diligent and committed, Mary Alexander is an energetic advocate for truth and justice on behalf of people who have been wrongfully injured. Her ﬁrm has a long track record of multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements as well as a $1.15 billion verdict against lead paint companies involving the poisoning of children in their homes.

LAWDRAGON

5 0 0 L E A D I N G L AW Y E R S I N A M E R I C A

44 M O N TGOM ERY ST ., SU I T E 1 3 0 3 , SAN FRANC I S CO, CA 94104 • PH: 415.433.4440 • FX: 415.433.5440 • MARYALEXAND ERLAW.COM

500

Genie Harrison epitomizes the spirit of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers in America. She believes deeply in the fight for those who have been wronged, in her case by sexual abuse and other hostile and discriminatory action in the workplace and elsewhere. From women assaulted by Harvey Weinstein to computer programmers denied equal pay, Harrison and her Los Angeles firm are the new vanguard for speaking up and saying hell no in a voice that resonates in court, in legislative bodies, and in the media. We selected the lawyers in our 2nd annual Plaintiff Employment 500 through submissions, research, and journalistic vetting. As this guide has moved to print, tens of millions of workers have lost their jobs amidst the pandemic. These lawyers are among the legal frontline hoping to find lifeblood for so many hurting individuals â&#x20AC;&#x201C; from those gig economy and restaurant workers with few protections, to retail, airline, and other stressed institutions whose futures are in doubt. These are the lawyers who will fight for you. When the odds are impossible.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

195

500

Genie Harrison knows how to get your attention. At a conference not long ago, she wore a T-shirt. Standard cut and cotton blend. But the slogan she created was something new: “Grab ‘em by the Verdict.” If you don’t get the reference, kindly crawl out from the rock you’ve been sleeping under and join the rest of us in the era of #MeToo, #TimesUp, and all other efforts to smash – ahem, reform – an outdated patriarchal system. Harrison and the associates at her eponymous law ﬁrm have been the legal vanguard of this movement, representing plaintiffs against convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein; a class of women seeking equal-

Her entire life is geared towards protecting the rights of women and minorities, particularly employees, but she didn’t always plan on this line of work. “When I went to law school, I wanted to work for The Hague and I wanted to prosecute war criminals who engaged in mass rape as a war crime and as a tactic in war,” says Harrison. Meanwhile, she had been having the horrendously common experience of professors, and, later, attorneys, making unwanted verbal and physical advances and violations. “I took a class on harassment and discrimination and I learned about sexual harassment. I said, ‘Oh, that’s what’s been happening to me, and you mean I could do something about that here?’”

BY ALISON PREECE

GRAB ‘EM BY THE VERDICT Genie Harrison once dreamt of prosecuting war criminals.

She found her calling taking on sexual harassment.

ity in Silicon Valley; and countless other victims of sexual abuse and gender-based discrimination in the workplace, including firefighters, transit workers, and janitors. Her advocacy extends beyond the cases she litigates. Harrison developed two apps for victims of abuse and their lawyers: Damages Genie and Incident Genie. The first helps plaintiffs communicate about the emotional distress they are suffering and facilitates attorneys’ preparation of cases, all the way from discovery responses to trial preparation. The latter enables victims to track and record abuses and harassment, including geo-tagging and uploading photos — an idea she had as she grew incensed watching Lindsey Graham reject testimony by alleged victims in the Kavanaugh hearings because of a lack of evidence other than their testimony. Harrison is also a columnist for Ms. Magazine, educating readers on topics like the Equal Rights Amendment, workplace discrimination, forced arbitration, and why judicial appointments matter so much to individual citizens.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

And do something about it she has. When she began practicing law 27 years ago, there were, of course, far fewer sexual harassment cases being brought. But she knew that would be her focus. After law school and a judicial clerkship, she joined a law firm in Southern California, doing a mix of business litigation and plaintiff work. After about six years she was firmly focused on the plaintiff side. She had a string of partnerships about which she says, “I was the problem in those relationships. I knew there was a better way to practice law, but was a failed advocate because I couldn’t convince anyone to do it my way.” Instead, in 2013, she started her own firm so she could devote herself entirely to the work that fueled her the most – and do so according to her own high standards. “I think the community was hungry for a law firm like mine,” she says. The women of Riot Games would, we think, agree. They recently brought Harrison in to take over the class-action suit they had brought against their employer, a video game company with headquarters in Los Angeles.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

197

500 Disrupting the status quo is an area in which Harrison feels quite comfortable. Her most high-profile work to date has been representing Sandeep Rehal, a former personal assistant of Harvey Weinstein, in a civil case against the once all-powerful movie mogul and his former company. The story of Riot Games is a familiar narrative in Silicon Valley. Two college roommates had an idea — in this case, developing a single video game that they would continuously work to improve, building an online community and hosting esports tournaments. They founded the company in 2006, and the flagship game, League of Legends, was a hit: Just five years later the tech startup was majorityacquired by Chinese holding company Tencent, then fully acquired in 2015. But along with the breakneck growth and commercial success came problems, frustratingly predictable at this point: The female employees at Riot Games were suffering from inequality and a sexist “bro” culture, all too rampant in the tech industry. The women brought a class-action lawsuit against the company in 2018, with claims alleging unequal pay, sexual harassment, and whistleblower retaliation. The class included over a thousand current and former employees of the game company. By the following year they had reached a potential settlement, but anyone paying attention tilted their heads at the sum: a paltry $10M for the entire class. Harrison believed they likely deserved more. And she wasn’t the only one. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing had been investigating Riot Games for almost a year and a half at that point, and they, along with the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement, were opposed to the settlement, deeming it insufficient. (In one assessment, they suggested something closer to $400M might be more appropriate.) This was an unusual move for these agencies, who said that the case had lacked proper discovery, no real experts seemed to be called in, and, perhaps most damning, they suggested there may have been collusion between Riot Games and plaintiffs’ counsel (Beverly Hills-based Rosen Saba), to the detriment of the class. The Riot Games women realized they needed a women’s rights attorney who would be able to come in and grab them by the you-know-what. Enter: Genie Harrison. 198

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Her first move was to withdraw the proposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and start a robust process, including interviewing many putative class members and hiring statisticians to analyze pay data, which is ongoing. The issue of equal pay may seem straight-forward – like, yes, let’s go ahead and pay people fair wages regardless of their reproductive organs, shall we? – but real-life applications are often more complex. Harrison points to the analysis done by software behemoth Salesforce, whose CEO, Marc Benioff, felt sure that there was no pay inequity in his company. So certain, in fact, that he told his head of HR to go ahead and do the analysis, committing to correct any disparities they found. Well, they were rampant, and to date, the company has paid out over $10M to close the gap. What’s more, Salesforce voluntarily performs these equal pay studies and adjusts salaries as a result every year. “When you take that proactive, responsible approach that is based on individual autonomous personal responsibility, and you hold it up in comparison to what Riot Games has done, you see the problem,” says Harrison. “When we ignore what is ubiquitous and known across society, that women are paid 30 percent to 40 percent less in some industries than men, and we do nothing about it, we’re choosing to allow it to continue.” Disrupting the status quo is an area in which Harrison feels quite comfortable. Her most high-profile work to date has been representing Sandeep Rehal, a former personal assistant of Harvey Weinstein, in a civil case against the once all-powerful movie mogul and his former company. The claims, filed in state court in New York, include physical and verbal sexual harassment, with the complaint citing a “pervasive and severe sexually hostile work environment.” She was not directly involved in the criminal case against Weinstein, but (like the rest of the world), was paying close attention. She cheered his recent conviction, not only because she has dedicated

500

her life to the rights of women, but because the defense was using a common argument that experts like Harrison have long been working to debunk: that the victims somehow “wanted” this abuse from their employer (or potential employer), in particular pointing to what was often a continuing relationship after the fact. “The harasser or perpetrator beneﬁts from the disorganizing consequences of the trauma that he or she imposes,” explains Harrison, “The way we, as a society, may expect sexual abuse victims to respond is not actually consistent with the data. We don’t go through life – most of us thankfully – learning how to respond to traumatic events like rape and sexual harassment in ways that make sense to society at large.” The defense showed conversations and other interactions the women had with Weinstein following the abuse, claiming it was irrational behavior, or, more to the point, proof of a lack of wrongdoing on his part.

the rules. People need to lose their jobs when they break these rules. As a matter of public policy across this nation, we have decided that it is important for people to support themselves by going to work, having a job and earning an income, and being able to do so free from harassment or discrimination based on immutable characteristics, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity.” In the Weinstein civil cases, Harrison and others have reached a tentative joint settlement of $25M, to be dispersed among dozens of Weinstein’s accusers. Some of the plaintiffs and their counsel are not satisﬁed with the sum, which is to be paid by the insurance companies since The Weinstein Company has declared bankruptcy. (Weinstein himself is also widely expected to be ﬁling for bankruptcy sometime soon.) The insurance policies are the only real assets the former production company has at this point, and the insurers have sued to declare the policies invalid

Her work on behalf of firefighters, for example, helped reform a culture of racial and gender inequity at the Los Angeles Fire Department through a series of civil cases and other efforts. Her results include a $6.8M judgment on behalf of an African American lesbian firefighter who suffered discrimination, harassment, and retaliation when she tried to blow the whistle. “The entire prosecution, including Dr. Barbara Ziv’s expert testimony, was framed around teaching the jury that there are sex abuse and rape myths,” she says. “They showed that the simple fact that these women conducted themselves in certain ways afterwards, including continuing to communicate with one of the most powerful men in their business, literally the man with the golden ticket, makes a lot more sense than the defense would have us believe, and is in fact consistent with the behavior of many rape and abuse victims.” Does his conviction represent a sea change in the way sexual abuse and harassment cases are going to be handled? “I certainly hope so,” says Harrison. “I’m optimistic. Now, do I think that the last sexual harassment or rape case has walked through my door and that everything’s going to be all better now? No. I do think, in part, some of these things are human nature. So we have to impose consequences for breaking

due to the company’s failure to disclose the many sexual harassment claims against Weinstein over the years. The insurance policies are what’s called “burning limits” policies, which means that for every dollar spent on the defense of any of these cases, that’s a dollar less that’s available to the victims from the insurance funds. “I understand the frustration and I wish it could be a billion dollars,” says Harrison. “But I believe this is the best outcome in an incredibly complex, incredibly difﬁcult circumstance.” “Sometimes what happens is you get portions of the justice pie in different settings,” she says. “There is a big portion of the justice pie that happened criminally as a result of the incredibly brave women who came forward, on whose behalf charges were brought, and who then testiﬁed. There was a piece of the justice pie that was achieved through investigative journalism, by Ronan Farrow and Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, in outing Harvey Wein-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

199

500 stein, and through social media where women are telling the truth and supporting one another, and then also through the civil cases. Those are each part of the justice pie.” Harrison’s cases are frequently in this realm of impact litigation, finding relief for victims but also effecting changes in society. She understands that justice for her clients often goes beyond the monetary. Her work on behalf of firefighters, for example, helped reform a culture of racial and gender inequity at the Los Angeles Fire Department through a series of civil cases and other efforts. Her results include a $6.8M judgment on behalf of an African American lesbian firefighter who suffered discrimination, harassment, and retaliation when she tried to blow the whistle. In addition to the brass tacks of litigation, Harrison helped organize a grassroots movement to shed light on the prejudice and abuse being suffered by female and minority firefighters in the city agency. She worked with community groups, the media, and larger organizations such as NAACP and the National Organization of Women, and government agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “We, as a result of a group effort, made change,” she says. Harrison has a natural ability to rally others to a cause, and seems to have an endless supply of heart and verve to fight for what’s right. But she is, in fact, a mortal. Working regularly with victims of trauma, in some of the lowest points of their lives, she prioritizes self-care in her life and with the associates and staff at her office, so that they can keep up the fight. “We have an incredibly tight knit group,” she says of her team, which consists of five attorneys in a

downtown Los Angeles office. “There’s no artifice or pretense. We laugh, we cry, we’re dressed up, we’re in sweats. We’re just people doing everything we can to fight for justice, support each other, and be real.” “There’s a lot of love and support that happens inside my office,” says Harrison. “We move components around when somebody’s burnt out or when they need a day or whatever. Our goal is to be able to keep doing this, emotionally, physically, with the love and support of our families, and time off for doctors and therapy. We try to keep all of those components moving in the same direction, supporting ourselves and one another.” Harrison quit drinking years ago, has a daily post-office workout routine, and puts a premium on laughter and a good night’s sleep. She also keeps a handle on her workload, despite being increasingly recognized as a fierce and unstoppable advocate for women, whom everyone wants on their side. “I have a low volume, high quality practice,” she says. “I’m extremely detail oriented and I want to do my best job on every case. That takes time. It does for all the lawyers and paralegals in my firm, so we keep a very low case load. Lawyers have no more than five to seven cases in litigation at a time so we can do our best job and not feel like we’re going to burn out.” It’s a smart strategy, even if the world might be better off with ten (or ten thousand) Genie Harrisons to cover all the ground that still needs tending. “[My clients] only want justice,” she says. “They want what’s right and they want to be heard.” And so: Harrison will continue to grab ‘em by the verdict until such time as all grabbing is unnecessary because we’ve collectively learned our lesson to keep our damn hands to ourselves. One can dream…

Harrison has a natural ability to rally others to a cause, and seems to have an endless supply of heart and verve to fight for what’s right. But she is, in fact, a mortal. Working regularly with victims of trauma, in some of the lowest points of their lives, she prioritizes self-care in her life and with the associates and staff at her office, so that they can keep up the fight.

200

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 202

Vicki Lafer Abrahamson

Lisa Banks

ABRAHAMSON VORACHEK CHICAGO

KATZ MARSHALL & BANKS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Andrew Abramson

Sally Barker

ABRAMSON EMPLOYMENT LAW BLUE BELL, PA.

SCHUCHAT COOK ST. LOUIS

Michael Adler

Kathleen Barnard

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

BARNARD IGLITZIN SEATTLE

Ann-Marie Ahern

Jeffrey Bartos

MCCARTHY LEBIT CLEVELAND

GUERRIERI BARTOS WASHINGTON, D.C.

J. Bernard Alexander III

John Beasley Jr.

ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LOS ANGELES

JF BEASLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW WATKINSVILLE, GA.

Gloria Allred

Jonathan Jay Ben-Asher

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

RITZ CLARK & BEN-ASHER NEW YORK

Margaret Angelucci

Seth Benezra

ASHER GITTLER CHICAGO

BENEZRA & CULVER DENVER

Melissa Auerbach

Tiffanie Benfer

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

HARDWICK BENFER DOYLESTOWN, PA.

Rebekah Bailey

Rachel Berlin Benjamin

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

BUCKLEY BEAL ATLANTA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Barry M. Bennett

E. Troy Blakeney

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

BLAKENEY FLYNN HOUSTON

Harvey Berger

Robert Bloch

BERGER WILLIAMS SAN DIEGO

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

Lynne Bernabei

Beth Bloom

BERNABEI & KABAT WASHINGTON, D.C.

BLOOM LAW SEATTLE

Jonathan Berns

Katherine Blostein

DOBSON GOLDBERG ST. LOUIS

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Inga Bernstein

Ellen Boardman

ZALKIND DUNCAN BOSTON

O’DONOGHUE & O’DONOGHUE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stephen Berzon

Kathleen Bogas

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

BOGAS & KONCIUS BINGHAM FARMS, MICH.

Michael Bien

Jean Boler

ROSEN BIEN SAN FRANCISCO

SCHAEFER HALLEEN MINNEAPOLIS

Rachel Bien

Subhashini Bollini

OUTTEN & GOLDEN SAN FRANCISCO

CORREIA & PUTH WASHINGTON, D.C.

Maureen Binetti

Arlene Boop

WILENTZ LAW FIRM WOODBRIDGE, N.J.

ALTERMAN BOOP NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

203

500

Samuel J. Cordes ROTHMAN GORDON (PITTSBURGH)

204

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

SAMUEL J. CORDES Pittsburgh-based employment lawyer Samuel Cordes works primarily on the plaintiff side, representing employees against ﬁrms of all sizes. His wins have set signiﬁcant precedents for workers in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, including securing the largest-ever pregnancy discrimination verdict in the Western District of Pennsylvania. With a background in journalism that keeps him focused on the storytelling aspects of any litigation, Cordes compares the challenge of representing employees in discrimination cases to “putting together a jigsaw puzzle.” The Rothman Gordon partner is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the work you do for employees and other workers? Sam Cordes: I handle the full gauntlet of employment matters: discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower, Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, constitutional matters, and common law discharge cases.

BY ALISON PREECE ployee is fired, he or she not only loses the income from that position, he or she loses the identity. They are profoundly affected. That ability to make a difference in such an important area is professionally satisfying. LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say are the most interesting matters you have handled? SC: During the mid-1990s, I handled a series of sexual harassment, hostile environment, and retaliation cases against members of the Pennsylvania judiciary. On behalf of a number of clients, we filed suit in federal court in the Western and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania challenging the conduct of sitting state trial court judges directed at their female law clerks, court probation officers, and court reporters. Several of those judges resigned as a result of those cases. In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that sexual harassment brings the judiciary

THE LARGEST CHALLENGE BY FAR IS THE EMERGENCE DURING THE PAST 20-25 YEARS OF SOPHISTICATED DISCRIMINATORS WHO HAVE LEARNED TO BE MUCH MORE SUBTLE. LD: How did you first become interested in developing this type of practice? SC: After first year of law school, I worked for a small personal injury firm that also did a fair amount of workers’ compensation work. The firm did no employment work – indeed, the partners thought it could not be done. At the same time, the firm really liked my work, and was willing to let me do what I wanted if I stayed.

into disrepute – a finding that had theretofore not been determined. In a similar vein I have handled a significant number of such cases against large law firms. I have found the same arrogance on the part of the judiciary and Big Law partners fuels the cases.

SC: This practice area is alive with change and challenges. The law constantly evolves; the cases are extremely fact speciﬁc and the possibility of being factually and legally creative is always there.

During that same period, I handled a series of indirect evidence discrimination cases that have resulted in recognition that the corporate culture of an employer is a relevant piece of evidence in a discrimination case, and that the culture can be proven by resorting to comments and actions of higher management. These cases established the notion in the Third Circuit that discrimination actions are both vertical (that is, about how the employer treated the individual plaintiff), and also horizontal (that is, how the employer treats a wide range of employees). Both vertical and horizontal evidence is relevant and probative.

In addition, this area of practice is about much more than making rich people richer. The essence of who we are often is tied up in what we do. When an em-

I have handled several political affiliation discharge cases and, through appellate practice in that area, have clarified and simplified the way to prove causation.

LD: What are some aspects about representing employees and workers that you ﬁnd professionally satisfying?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

205

500 206

Victoria Bor

Eric Brown

SHERMAN DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

TIDES SAN FRANCISCO

David Borgen

Louis Bucceri

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON PINCUS BLOOMFIELD, N.J.

Warren Borish

Edward Buckley

SPEAR WILDERMAN PHILADELPHIA

BUCKLEY BEAL ATLANTA

Kirsten Branigan

Eric Burnette

KSBRANIGAN LAW MONTCLAIR, N.J.

BURNETTE DOBSON CHATTANOOGA, TENN.

Lynne Bratcher

Harry Burnette

BRATCHER GOCKEL INDEPENDENCE, MO.

BURNETTE DOBSON CHATTANOOGA, TENN.

Elaine Charlson Bredehoft

M. Malissa Burnette

CHARLSON BREDEHOFT RESTON, VA.

BURNETTE SHUTT COLUMBIA, S.C.

Molly Brooks

Heather Burns

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

UPTON & HATFIELD CONCORD, N.H.

Thomas Brooks

Joseph Burns

MEYER BROOKS TALLAHASSEE

JACOBS BURNS CHICAGO

Carla Brown

Robert Bush

CHARLSON BREDEHOFT RESTON, VA.

BUSH GOTTLIEB GLENDALE, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

KEEP YOUR PASSION, BUT REMEMBER THAT YOUR CLIENTS NEED YOUR SKILL AND BRAINS MUCH MORE THAN THEY NEED YOUR HEART. PLAINTIFF EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS OFTEN ARE REFERRED TO AS “PASSIONATE.” I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE KNOWN AS “SMART AND EFFECTIVE.” LD: Are you seeing any trends in employment law these days, in terms of the type of matters keeping you busy? SC: The matters that keep me most busy during the past ﬁve years have been what I like to call “inconvenience discrimination” cases. Pregnancy discrimination; disability discrimination; FMLA and retaliation actions come with an existing employer argument that “no one dislikes pregnant women, disabled people, or people who need to be off work because of a serious health condition.” This thinking stems from the wrongheaded notion that for discrimination to be actionable, it must come with a built in dislike for the protected category. The inconvenience discrimination cases, however, do not start with that premise. Rather, properly litigated, they begin with the notion that things making life inconvenient for the boss are at the heart of the above adverse actions. No one hates pregnant women; bosses dislike the fact that they must work longer, or hire substitutes. No one dislikes a disabled worker; bosses dislike the inconvenience caused by the need to accommodate. By far those kinds of discharges have taken the place of the traditional animus-motivated actions. LD: What are some challenges unique to representing employees in today’s world compared to earlier in your career? SC: The largest challenge by far is the emergence during the past 20-25 years of sophisticated discriminators who have learned to be much more subtle. Proving a discrimination case is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle – each piece standing alone may stand for nothing. Putting that puzzle together is what makes it fun to represent employees in today’s world. LD: Can you describe a recent matter you handled that had particular challenges to overcome?

SC: I recently handled a set of atmospheric discrimination actions, involving as the affected employees the female C-suite officer who was fired after complaining of stark unequal pay. At the same time, I was representing a series of lower level blue-collar employees who were fired for the same reason. The challenge in those cases was to show a culture where such retaliation was the standard operating procedure. It required a significant amount of searching for contrast evidence – that is, evidence contrasting how the employer applied its policies, rules, and expectations to employees who were disparate in their level of responsibility, but at bottom, subjected in the same way to the animus disfavoring all who spoke out. LD: How did you first develop an interest in having a career in the law? SC: I used to be a newspaper reporter. I covered courts for a time. I remember covering two trials with similar facts, but vastly different quality of lawyers. LD: Did you have experience as an employee earlier in your life that played a role in how you shaped your career? SC: I did well in my first year of law school, and therefore quickly became caught up in the Second Year Big Law interview phenomenon, which is fueled by the silly notion that good and sophisticated law is only practiced in hundred-attorney law firms. I did those interviews and received the coveted summer associate position. In the meantime, during second year, I worked for a three-attorney group, one that allowed me to handle most everything and to run with creative ideas. My opposition was those same big firm lawyers I would soon be joining for the summer. I was under-impressed. I kept that attitude during my summer and never have lost it. Good law, and sophisticated law, is found in firms of all sizes and good lawyers are found everywhere.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

207

500 208

R. Kyle Busse

David Cashdan

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PORTLAND

CASHDAN & KANE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Katherine Butler

Eve Cervantez

BUTLER HARRIS HOUSTON

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Alejandro Caffarelli

Robert Cervone

CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES CHICAGO

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

Kerry Cahill

Lin Chan

SUE ELLEN EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH.

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

David Campbell

Katherine Charlton

WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION TUKWILA, WASH.

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

Robert Cantore

Stephen Chertkof

GILBERT & SACKMAN LOS ANGELES

HELLER HURON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Greg Care

Lewis Chimes

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS CHIMES STAMFORD

Cedar Carlton

Barbara “B.J.” Chisholm

WEBSTER & FREDRICKSON WASHINGTON, D.C.

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Larry Cary

Jeanne Christensen

CARY KANE NEW YORK

WIGDOR NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: What advice do you have for current law school students who hope to represent employees? SC: My advice would be to keep your passion, but remember that your clients need your skill and brains much more than they need your heart. Plaintiff employment lawyers often are referred to as “passionate.” I would much rather be known as “smart and effective.” LD: Was there an early experience that really helped shape the course of your professional life? SC: I joined a small plaintiffs’ firm that had no employment law cases. I was given the time and space to develop a practice. While I did that, I helped with the personal injury and criminal practice and I learned to try cases from two attorneys who taught by example to never forget who you were representing and who you were trying the case for. I address jurors as “folks” because I view a trial as a chance to discuss what happened with plainspoken people. LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? Or how do you think others see you? SC: A profile in a local newspaper described me as “extremely smart in the scholarly sense,” and at the same time full of “street smart sense.” That describes my style as a lawyer. Being a good employment lawyer means you must be good on paper and also good in court. I take both very seriously. So in a courtroom, I try hard to bring the jury along on an interesting and good time journey where at the end they have the power to do justice. I try to do the same in written materials. The essence of both is to tell a story. My style as a lawyer is to be a storyteller and an educator. LD: Did you have any early mentors who made an impact on your career? SC: I am sure she doesn’t realize, but my first boss in a large firm had a profound effect on the course

of my professional life, and she did it in a critique of a brief. I was just out of law school and I really wanted to sound “like a lawyer” so my brief was filled with Latin-esque phrases and wherefores and whereases and heretos. She handed the work back, and in big red letters wrote: “speak English, F*** the prothonotary.” It spoke volumes about an outlook that focuses on solving difficult problems with clear and precise thinking divorced from a need to “sound like a lawyer.” LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? SC: “Outside the office?” What’s that? Just kidding. I try to keep Anna Quindlen’s advice in mind: “Don’t ever confuse the two, your life and your work…. The second is only a part of the first.” She also said, very wisely, “You cannot be really first-rate at your work if your work is all you are.” LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system? SC: “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Both the book, as well as the current Broadway play. I like both because it portrays the essence of a lawyer – the need to sometimes take on what seems like an impossible task and do one’s best, even in the face of what appears to be a sure loss. Change comes slowly and often incrementally. And a loss where you go down fighting can and often does have a profound effect on the next case. Atticus Finch understood that. LD: If you weren’t a lawyer, what would you be doing now? SC: I would probably be retired. But I continue to practice because it is fun and challenging and provides an opportunity to have an effect on people’s lives.

BEING A GOOD EMPLOYMENT LAWYER MEANS YOU MUST BE GOOD ON PAPER AND ALSO GOOD IN COURT. I TAKE BOTH VERY SERIOUSLY. SO IN A COURTROOM, I TRY HARD TO BRING THE JURY ALONG ON AN INTERESTING AND GOOD TIME JOURNEY WHERE AT THE END THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO JUSTICE. LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

209

500 210

Dean Christianson

Stephen Console

SCHUCHAT COOK ST. LOUIS

CONSOLE MATTIACCI PHILADELPHIA

Denise M. Clark

Samuel J. Cordes

CLARK LAW GROUP WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROTHMAN GORDON PITTSBURGH

Julia Penny Clark

Theresa Corrado

BREDHOFF & KAISER WASHINGTON, D.C.

BENEZRA & CULVER DENVER

Miriam Clark

Linda Correia

RITZ CLARK & BEN-ASHER NEW YORK

CORREIA & PUTH WASHINGTON, D.C.

Arnold Shep Cohen

Gregg Corwin

OXFELD COHEN NEWARK, N.J.

GREGG M. CORWIN & ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE MINNEAPOLIS

Peter Cohen

Marc Cote

CHARLSON BREDEHOFT RESTON, VA.

FRANK FREED SEATTLE

Steven R. Cohen

Ben Crump

SELIKOFF & COHEN MT. LAUREL, N.J.

BEN CRUMP LAW TALLAHASSEE

Joyce Collier

John Culver

GREENBLATT PIERCE PHILADELPHIA

BENEZRA & CULVER DENVER

Francis Collins

Jillian Cutler

KAHN SMITH BALTIMORE

FRANK FREED SEATTLE

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Joel Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Alba

Peter DeChiara

ASHER GITTLER CHICAGO

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

Cornelia Ho-Chin Dai

Nicole Horberg Decter

HADSELL STORMER PASADENA, CALIF.

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

Linda Dardarian

Lori Deem

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

HUGHES SOCOL CHICAGO

Frank Darras

Jeffrey Demain

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Stuart W. Davidson

Sanford Dennison

WILLIG WILLIAMS PHILADELPHIA

BAAB & DENISON DALLAS

Emile Davis

Kelly Dermody

DOLAN LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Susan Davis

Reena Desai

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

Roberta de Araujo

Erica Deutsch

JOHNSON WEBBERT PORTLAND, MAINE

BUSH GOTTLIEB GLENDALE, CALIF.

Victoria de Toledo

Julie Gutman Dickinson

CASPER & DE TOLEDO STAMFORD, CONN.

BUSH GOTTLIEB GLENDALE, CALIF.

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

211

500

Anita Hill COHEN MILSTEIN (WALTHAM, MASS.)

212

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ANITA HILL BEFORE THERE WAS #METOO, THERE WAS ANITA HILL. In 1991, the scholarly law professor told her story. Of her early years as a lawyer in Washington, D.C., working for a powerful, ascendant government lawyer. How he acted. What he said. How she felt. She had worked so hard to become a lawyer. From her small-town roots in Lone Tree, Okla., one of 13 children, she graduated from Oklahoma State University and then Yale Law School. After one year in private practice in D.C., she got what she thought was her big break. She became an advisor to Clarence Thomas, then Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. She joined him when he became chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a watershed hearing that opened the doors on sexual harassment. Her testimony profoundly changed the discussion on sexual harassment and assault. We learned the words for things that were happening in workplaces from restaurants to fancy law firms. And we learned we were not alone. She, meanwhile, returned to being a somewhat quiet but candid law professor at Oklahoma State University Law School. Over the last 27 years she has been interviewed and written widely, including her necessary book, “Speaking Truth to Power.” She is now of counsel at Cohen Milstein and a professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University. The last time the majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee themselves questioned a woman in uncomfortable circumstances was their attack on Hill. The generation of women entering the workplace with high hopes of equality and achievement watched Hill’s grace and determination and we vowed never again. She was lecturing at the University of Idaho Law School in October 2017 when the reawakening occurred. She remembers it well because news of Harvey Weinstein broke near the anniversary of the 1991 hearings. In the year since then, of course, another powerful, ascendant man was nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PHOTO BY: KEN RICHARDSON

BY KATRINA DEWEY Lawdragon: Do you recall how you felt, where you were when the Harvey Weinstein story broke? I can’t imagine being you watching the emergence of the #MeToo era into the broad public consciousness. Anita Hill: When I really absorbed the full brunt of the Harvey Weinstein story, it was October 11 or 12 and I was in Idaho doing talks at the University of Idaho Law School, which is split between Moscow and Boise. I was traveling and realized that it was the anniversary of the hearing from 1991. The whole idea of sexual harassment becoming part of the public discourse was heavy on my mind. One of the two sessions, at least, was really about 1991, but more importantly what we’ve learned since then. So, of course when I heard about the Harvey Weinstein story and all of the people who were coming out, I thought not just about him but really about a culture that seemed to accept him and systems that were put in place to protect him. It all reminded me, one, that we’ve been through this before. We thought that we had resolved the issues. And to some extent we’ve made headway, we’ve made some gains. But we still haven’t resolved all of the problems. Because many of the things that were coming out have happened clearly since 1991. As more and more of the stories came out, I realized that a whole new generation and eventually young men as well were living through the experience of sexual harassment as much as I had in the workplace. LD: I graduated law school in 1986 and it was shocking to me in 1991 what you had experienced early in your career, in the early ‘80s. We know comparing harassment is never productive, yet the Weinstein story felt as though your experience from an earlier era had metastasized and become so much larger and more grotesque, if that’s possible. AH: You used the word metastasized. I think of these kinds of abuses more like they’re viral, so they go through a period where they are being confronted and people are doing things. And just like a virus, people are developing immunities to it or having a response to it. But then it turns into another generation of the same problem, and it gets stronger. So, it goes around and, for a while it seems like the virus is at least reduced, if not eliminated. But then it comes back in almost like a fuller force – and that’s exactly what we’ve learned from the Harvey

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

213

500

TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, NO ONE GAINS WHEN HARASSMENT EXISTS IN A WORKPLACE. YOU MIGHT ULTIMATELY THINK THAT SOMEHOW THERE MIGHT BE SOME GAIN FROM IT, BUT WHEN YOU DO ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS, YOU REALIZE THAT HARASSMENT HARMS EVERYONE. Weinstein revelations – that it came back in a stronger form in part because there were now systems in place that hadn’t been in place in the 1990s. And those tools or systems included these mandatory non-disclosure agreements that sort of mushroomed in the 1990s after the Supreme Court decision allowing mandated arbitration. Of course, there’s always been arbitration, but employers putting these clauses in their contracts had grown. And those had been sanctioned by the law. So, where people had stopped accepting sexual harassment as normal behavior, all those things were good and true. But we hadn’t anticipated that there would be formalized a way of avoiding the consequences of harassment or even avoiding being held accountable at all under the law. LD: Twenty-seven years after you testiﬁed in Clarence Thomas’ conﬁrmation hearings, it seems ironic that while your experience helped shape laws that protected from harassment and discrimination, it also led to structures that protected harassers. Maybe ironic is not the right word. AH: Right. Well, it was a response. I believe there’s a reason that these kind of agreements were not in place before to effectively change the way we’ve enforced civil rights law. The reason they weren’t in place is because we did see a rise in the number of complaints. People started taking advantage of the law that was there to protect and so as a counter to that, the forces that weren’t really interested in change, that weren’t interested in the kind of accountability that was becoming possible, developed around putting in place ways to avoid that accountability. I don’t think it was an accident. I think it was a reaction. You can call it a backlash, but whatever it is, we know that the law is really a tool and it’s the tool that gets used that often undermines other laws.

214

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

And that’s what we are witnessing. So, for all of the social movement that was occurring, there was a legal movement response to it. I think, though, what we have started to come to terms with in this generation is that it’s not legally helpful in the ways that people thought. These ideas that we should sort of push aside or try to cover up or hide these violations rather than confront them. We’re starting to learn that it’s not helpful to do so. We’re starting to learn that there’s real harm that is being done to individuals. There’s real harm that’s being done to our workforces. And that, then, ultimately, the people that have been trying to avoid these consequences, their organizations are harmed and they’re being harmed. That there are losses that are incurred because people in their workforces are sexually harassed. And the losses are not just about litigation costs. The losses are due to the reception and the effectiveness of the people who exist in the workplace. To put it another way, no one gains when harassment exists in a workplace. You might ultimately think that somehow there might be some gain from it, but when you do all of the calculations, you realize that harassment harms everyone. We’re seeing that play out in a big way, whether it’s Fox News with Roger Ailes, or some of the other media companies that have had to deal with reputational losses as well as ﬁnancial losses in the wake of #MeToo. LD: What do we do about the law – it’s like policing the police, you know? How do we get the law to police itself and to really provide a fair workplace for everyone? AH: I think the law evolves. We’ve got to challenge it on different fronts. I talk about the differences that have come into play to protect harassment. We now have different systems that are coming into play to

500

Jerome Dobson

Daniel Edelman

DOBSON BERNS ST. LOUIS

KATZ MARSHALL & BANKS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher Dolan

Herbert Eisenberg

DOLAN LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

EISENBERG & SCHNELL NEW YORK

Donald Donati

Sue Ellen Eisenberg

DONATI LAW MEMPHIS

SUE ELLEN EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH.

J. Peter Dowd

Molly Elkin

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

MCGILLIVARY STEELE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Carl Draper

Joshua Ellison

FELDMAN WASSER SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

Sarah Drescher

Karen Egelhardt

TEDESCO LAW GROUP PORTLAND, ORE.

ALLISON SLUTSKY CHICAGO

Stephen Drew

Daniel Engelstein

DREW COOPER GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

Ronald G. Dunn

Alan B. Epstein

GLEASON DUNN ALBANY, N.Y.

SPECTOR GADON PHILADELPHIA

Lori Ecker

Michael Fayette

LAW OFFICES OF LORI D. ECKER CHICAGO

PINSKY SMITH GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

215

500 protect our workforces against harassment. And that involves shareholder suits, plaintiff’s litigation, victim’s litigations. It also involves rules and resolutions by the ABA such as Resolution 302 that was passed last year. [It expands a policy adopted in 1992 with new components for enforcing protections against harassment and retaliation based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.] There was ABA Rule 8.4(g) [deﬁning harassment as misconduct]. So those are tools. And I believe that the law, in terms of what the courts are saying, is also evolving. I would also add that I understand that the federal court system has put together a committee to evaluate harassment policy within the judiciary. All of these things have to happen, because we’re not talking about individual behavior. Of course, we’re addressing individual behavior, but we’re also understanding how the systems have been working to undermine the law. The more we know about how to confront this in a systemic way, the more effective I think we will be. That’s one thing that’s different from what happened in 1991. We really didn’t understand the problem from a systemic point of view. We responded from a behavioral point of view. And yes, it was important that we pass the Civil Rights Act of 1991, that was a start, but to a large extent it was still legislation that was to protect an individual from another individual’s behavior. It didn’t challenge the systems that were in place. We’re just at a different place now in our understanding of how entrenched a problem it is that we’re addressing. LD: Let’s take the case of the disgraced former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski as an example of the power structures in law. A case like Judge Kozinski – and manifestations of that as it has been addressed in the media and by the federal judiciary – it really can maybe enlighten us about some of these entrenched power structures and what it takes for individuals to be heard sometimes. Which I guess you know better than anybody. AH: Absolutely the Kozinski case is a case study on why don’t people come forward. Well, how do different cultures suppress people from coming forward? The story that was told about the Kozinski situation was that what happens in judicial chambers is very private and it’s sort of, I won’t say entirely secretive, but it’s held closely by the people who are in that chamber. They rely on each other.

216

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

And if you listen to what was being said about it, you find that in other cultures too. It’s not just that it exists in the judiciary. Those kinds of close relationships exist in workplaces all over. And that then cultivates a culture of silence that is harmful to anyone who has a claim, that culture gets imposed. And we see that over and over again. We also see in those cultures a real threat of retaliation. And I’m not saying direct and deliberate always, but sometimes. So, for example, the people who work in Judge Kozinski’s chambers needed references. And so, if they start to complain, Judge Kozinski probably isn’t going to say – I’m putting words in his mouth, I won’t. Judge Kozinski or someone else in this position probably will not likely say, “This person brought a sexual harassment complaint against me.” They’re more likely to say, “Well, maybe this person isn’t a good team player.” And so that is what you hear and you never get the full story. But reputations can be ruined because of the way the culture supports keeping bad behavior a secret. So, I think there’s a lot to learn from this example. And I think there are lessons that apply not only to the judiciary, but I’m hoping that when it’s all said and done, other people will understand that these are happening in workplaces all over. You could say the same thing about a law firm, because the bar is relatively small in most locations. LD: It is. AH: And so a person may leave because of a problem they’re having, but they may choose not to disclose that problem because they realize that they’re going to need references or at the very least, they’re going to need for partners in the law firm not to give them bad references. There are lessons there. There are also lessons from academia. The National Academy of Sciences just did a big report on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. And when you look at that report, what you see is some of the same kinds of issues and practices that go across professions. And also some of the different systems like professional organizations that can either help stop the behavior or that can become complicit in it. So, we’re learning as a society how we can engage to get rid of these problems of conduct in our workforces. But what I think is that the law has a special obligation to really foster that learning, model that learning to be an example. We are sworn as lawyers to uphold the law.

500

Lynn Feiger

Andrew H. Friedman

LOHF SHAIMAN DENVER

HELMER FRIEDMAN BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

Brenda Feis

William Frumkin

FEIS GOLDY CHICAGO

FRUMKIN & HUNTER WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

Robert Fetter

Ernest Galvan

MILLER COHEN DETROIT

ROSEN BIEN SAN FRANCISCO

James Finberg

Joseph Garrison

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN NEW HAVEN, CONN.

Michele Fisher

Carol Garvan

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

JOHNSON WEBBERT PORTLAND, MAINE

Stephen Fitzgerald

Rachel Geman

GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN NEW HAVEN, CONN.

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Patrick Flynn

Narendra Ghosh

BLAKENEY FLYNN HOUSTON

PATTERSON HARKAVY CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

Bruce A. Frederickson

Carol Gillam

WEBSTER & FREDRICKSON WASHINGTON, D.C.

GILLAM LAW FIRM LOS ANGELES

Andrew D. Freeman

Hal Gillespie

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

GILLESPIE & SANFORD DALLAS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

217

500 218

Joseph Gillespie

Joseph Golden

GILLESPIE & SANFORD DALLAS

BURGESS SHARP CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICH.

John Girardi

Jon Goldfarb

GIRARDI KEESE LOS ANGELES

WIGGINS CHILDS BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Fred Gittes

Eileen Goldsmith

THE GITTES LAW GROUP COLUMBUS, OHIO

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Amy Gladstein

Barry Goldstein

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

Bradley Glazier

Joyce Goldstein

BOS & GLAZIER GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

GOLDSTEIN GRAGEL CLEVELAND

Gail Glick

Nathan Goldstein

ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LOS ANGELES

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

Marie Gockel

Neal Goldstein

BRATCHER GOCKEL INDEPENDENCE, MO.

FREEDMAN & LORRY PHILADELPHIA

Michael Goldberg

Jill Goldy

DOBSON GOLDBERG ST. LOUIS

FEIS GOLDY CHICAGO

Nathan Goldberg

David Frederick Gomez

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

DAVID FREDERICK GOMEZ CARMEL, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Right. That we as lawyers should be leading this. AH: We should be leading it. And we should be modeling it. And not only modeling it for our own workforce, but modeling it for our clients and the society at large. LD: For students or young people out there thinking about what profession they can enter to be treated fairly and make a difference, can law really be that? AH: Absolutely. And for litigants who are coming before the court. Understand that this is a judicial system that treats people fairy internally. LD: That you’re not before a judge who’s harassing his interns. AH: Harassing his interns or in any way assuming that they are above the law that they’re then trying to impose on people who come before them. LD: I hate to ask you to go back to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. AH: Yes but it’s important. LD: Did you experience a sense of deja vu watching the Kavanaugh hearings? And did you ﬁnd yourself questioning whether it was worth it for you to have gone through what you went through? AH: No, I have learned over the past 27 years not to necessarily compare my situation with others. I don’t think it’s fair to anyone. What I’ve learned in the cases that I’ve looked at is just the experiences that I’ve heard about even from the #MeToo movement is that we each deserve to be treated as our own story. And so, I didn’t see it necessarily as deja vu in the sense of my being compared to Christine Blasey Ford. But, I did see a sense of deja vu in terms of senators and their conduct. And I do want to make that clear. Because what I saw were the same – in some cases the very same people – being resistant to even acknowledging the importance of the testimony that was about to be given. And certainly then to respond in virtually the same way as in the 1991 hearings – it was really not anything like what one would describe as fair and impartial. Though they may have had doubt, they felt they could move on and really not move from any position they had before they put her through the testimony and the whole process. LD: Absolutely. And one of the things that struck me while watching after having read your book is that while I think that the media narrative of the hearing changed, progressed perhaps, from 1991 to 2018, as

did some other things incrementally, the thing that had probably changed the least is how the senators treated her. AH: I’ll call it the sham of bringing in someone to question her instead of doing it themselves. That was just sad. That they had avoided responsibility or accountability by bringing in a woman to ask tough questions, was just being irresponsible and neglecting their duty to her as a witness as well as to the general public. Because the general public has a right to know what their representatives are saying and thinking and to hear it from them. Not from some party that they delegate their work to. It was just irresponsible and it was an insult really to the process and to the American public that was listening to it. But certainly an insult to any of us who have ever been a witness before the Senate and any of us who has ever experienced sexual violence of any kind. If they couldn’t stand and face the American public and ask the questions that they wanted to ask, maybe the question shouldn’t be asked at all. LD: Because some of the things that they obviously asked you, and also approached with her, are kind of unspeakable. To be treated as though you were doing something wrong because you were questioning this great man, right? When you were just telling your experience. AH: Right, and I think even before they brought Christine on to testify and before they brought me on to testify, there was a clear indication that they didn’t believe that they should have to even be bothered with this. Because to them one important man has chosen another important man and that should be the end of it. LD: How would you envision it working and what difference could it have made if sexual assault experts were added to the testimony? AH: Not to question her, but to help the public understand what sexual assault survivors go through. How difﬁcult it is; why for example, a girl who is 15-, 16-, 17-years old would be afraid of coming forward and why that would live with her for her entire life. There were different ways that they could have approached this. But they chose none of the better ways, and chose all of the ways that were just cowardly and unhelpful and I would say a dereliction of their duties to the American public. Let alone to the witness. LD: The tableau was presented as a kind of he saidshe said, and so to your point, having sexual assault

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

219

500 experts come in as witnesses would have changed or modulated the entire tone.

in power, and the woman and a woman’s viewpoint on this being completely shut down.

AH: With the whole concept of he said-she said most people who investigate these kinds of claims know that these situations rarely are just one person’s word against the other. You do a thorough investigation, you will be able to provide context, you will be able to provide circumstances surrounding a charge, you will be able to weigh motives and none of that was possible in the way that the questioning took place. And also, the fact that they limited the investigation afterwards to make this sort of his word against hers, they only interviewed two people. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

AH: Well, absolutely. And then the sort of charade of giving the woman a space to talk. It only ampliﬁed how the balance of power lies with, in her case, her detractors. And so, we’ve got a long way to go but I will say that I do not believe that we’ll see the majority members of that committee as reﬂecting the sentiment of the American public.

To set up that dynamic, so the American public is left with that belief that there’s never a provable claim. That is really dangerous, that has a potential for silencing witnesses. When you’re dealing with a situation like the Kavanaugh hearing where the public has been impressed for weeks with what an outstanding individual he is, and he has been endorsed by political leaders and others in the room – in the hearing room, in the public school room – the chances that she will be believed are severely limited. LD: That’s right. As with your hearings, Kavanaugh came in already cloaked in endorsement from those in power. So even with a good effort, it’s very difﬁcult to create a fair environment to get to the facts. AH: And even if she is believed, his importance, his stature, his position, his nexus to power; very often it says, “But it’s more important for him to be able to continue on with his career and his ambition.” LD: Right. Not what about hers? AH: And, tragically, the court and the integrity of the judicial system suffers. LD: One of my takeaways that day, obviously thinking of you, was the impact the Kavanaugh hearings will have on this generation of women, and of young women entering the law. Like you, I’m from a small town and one of my best childhood friends, her daughter’s now going to UVA Law School. And her daughter has worked so hard and is embarking on the legal profession. After the hearings, she tweeted something like when will this ever stop? And it’s what I would have written had I been able in 1991. Because as women, and as people in the legal system, we see both what you said about the man in power being moved forward by other men

220

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

And not even the majority of the American public, certainly not a significant portion of the American public. And I believe that not only were we offended, but I think the public will respond. They will respond politically and if 1991 is any indication, women will be elected because people in general will feel that they are more representative. LD: I think it was the week after the Kavanaugh hearing I was in New York and there was a grey-haired couple walking by me and the woman had on her parka a good old-time political button: “I believe Anita.” AH: I have had lots of support since then because it did resonate with people and they did look back and think about what 1991 was and what it meant. And I would say that after the hearings of 1991, a significant majority, 70 percent or so, of people believe that Clarence Thomas should be confirmed. It’s simple as that; some of them believe that because they thought it was his right; some believed because they thought I had lied and that I was insignificant in terms of the grand scheme of things; and some believed that behavior that I had testified about, even if it were true was insignificant. And the surveys now after the Kavanaugh hearings show a very different feeling amongst the American public. And I think that is the emerging sense of what’s happening and what should be done and how we should be addressing these issues. So that gives me hope. It’s not instant, it’s not even immediate satisfaction, but it does give me hope. LD: And that’s what we need because otherwise we give up. AH: Yes, we give up and then we wonder what might have happened if we hadn’t given up. If we had just something that we could hold onto that would allow us to keep pushing until we got change. LD: In addition to sexual harassment experts as witnesses, what are the other key changes that should be made to the process?

500

Lisa Gomez

John Griffin Jr.

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

MAREK GRIFFIN VICTORIA, TEXAS

Richard Gonzalez

Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

RICHARD J. GONZALEZ CHICAGO

ROSEN BIEN SAN FRANCISCO

Joshua Goodbaum

Joseph Guerrieri

GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN NEW HAVEN, CONN.

GUERRIERI BARTOS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Philip Gordon

Caren Gurmankin

GORDON LAW GROUP BOSTON

CONSOLE MATTIACCI PHILADELPHIA

David Gottlieb

Barbara Hadsell

WIGDOR NEW YORK

HADSELL STORMER PASADENA, CALIF.

Ira Gottlieb

Ryan Hagerty

BUSH GOTTLIEB GLENDALE, CALIF.

ASHER GITTLER CHICAGO

Tamara Gowens

Loretta Haggard

ATTORNEY AT LAW OKLAHOMA CITY

SCHUCHAT COOK ST. LOUIS

Susan Gragel

Toni Halleen

GOLDSTEIN GRAGEL CLEVELAND

SCHAEFER HALLEEN MINNEAPOLIS

Cara Greene

Aaron Halstead

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

HAWKS QUINDEL MADISON, WIS.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

221

500 AH: I will say that I am convinced that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s process could have been different. That they could have had a thorough investigation, they could have had it done by a neutral party. It didn’t have to be done and controlled by the White House whose interest in confirming their nominee is clear. So, that could have been done, to bring in investigators who have not only been informed about sexual assault, but also about trauma investigations. What are the right questions to make sure that you have all the of the information that you need to get to what is a reasonable and documentable conclusion. And I’d pull back the lens a little bit and remind people that when you’re dealing with the U.S. Senate and they are asked to hold someone accountable for sexual misconduct, you are dealing with a body that has not itself been subject to accountability for sexual misconduct. There is no rule governing the U.S. Senate. Those members are not accustomed to the whole idea of accountability. LD: It’s so sad when you put it that way. Because the way that the hearings were set up as she said-he said, with Brett Kavanaugh mustering his fiery defense for the audience of one in President Trump who himself got to office over multiple assertions and facts of sexual harassment, in front of senators who are accountable to nobody except the electorate. AH: I’m also deeply troubled by the use of language that was absolutely inappropriate in this setting. This is a political proceeding, and to interject language about innocent until proven guilty into that political proceeding, was, I believe, a denigration of the whole concept – which lawyers know applies in a criminal proceeding where there’s a risk of loss of life or loss of liberty, where the government might in fact take away a right from an individual. We need to protect this idea of innocent until proven guilty in the concept of a criminal proceeding. To guard against wrongful prosecution. We need it. It should not be used as cover for political choices that people make. So when you have the senators using it, it’s really dangerous on two fronts. It’s dangerous in terms of its use as political cover, but it also reduces the integrity of the concept when it comes to criminal proceedings where it rightly belongs. And so that language I found, as a lawyer, quite offensive. I also found it offensive as an individual who’s seen how important it is and believes in its importance in criminal proceedings. To sort of use it loosely and sort of throw it around without regard to where it should be

222

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

used was again one of those things that the senators started to use whatever they had, not to get at the truth. But to cover for their own inadequacies. LD: That explains better what was so troubling about the standard. The senators set up the she said-he said context, and then they interject a standard where she said-he said means there is no … AH: He wins. That he wins. LD: Right? Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. AH: Right. And so, all of this is again the wrong message from our elected ofﬁcials about the experiences that happen to women and to which they can ﬁnd no recourse. Either political or legal in many cases. And I can’t tell you how many people I have encountered who felt very deeply that they did not have the right that other people had, that their rights were not being honored in the way they should have been in that political arena. And whether or not that was going to then extend to other arenas as well is a real concern that’s out there. LD: But I assume that the people who have come to you, it’s because women and others who’ve experienced assault and powerlessness are now speaking up and feeling the impact of #MeToo. And that is fusing with political movements in a way that could portend political change. AH: It might and if history’s any indication, it will. And maybe we’ve already had some indication of that in this election. It’s hard to know how much of the activity was linked to Kavanaugh or within the candidates or just the times or what was the source of people’s energy for getting out to vote in November and some of the choices that were made. It’s hard to know where that came from. But it’s also not unthinkable that some of it came from the Kavanaugh hearing. LD: As with 1991, people really cared about the hearing, and having watched the horrible sausagemaking of it where – as it neared hindsight – it felt that “Oh my God we just fed her through the blender for a show where it looked like she/many of us were being heard but ultimately were not.” I think you’re right there is hope because people watched again this year with their own eyes and felt even if this came out as it did, there was greater awareness that the way the senators treated her was wrong. I think there’s more focus on how to not let this happen again. But I don’t know. I fear it will happen again. AH: I think there is cause for hope, but let’s not underestimate ourselves. The awareness of the problem

500

of sexual violence in all of its forms from harassment, verbal harassment, to psychological harassment, to physical harassment to sexual assault and rape, the awareness has just been increased in the past decade I would say. We are a different public than we were in the 1990s and certainly than in 1991. I think we as a public take it more seriously and we’re willing to learn what it is we need to know because we know this happens, and we know victims of this. And we can think of October of 2017 for reminding us that these stories are true and they’re real and they’re happening and they have happened to someone near you. And so if people ask me has anything changed? I say well, certainly some people in the Senate Judiciary Committee haven’t changed, but we have changed, we have changed. The public has changed since 1991. Now, we just have to ﬁgure out what that change means. And whether it is that we are willing to make what some people think are hard decisions about what the consequences should be. And what our systems need to be to catch up with that change. LD: So would you say you’re still an optimist about the law’s ability to lead in this arena? AH: I’m optimistic because I know that among lawyers, there are many people who believe that and are willing to take it on. I am realistic enough to know that we’re not 100 percent behind this. That some of the cultural myths or social myths or biases that cultivate the problem exist within our rank. So I know that. But I also know that we have gone through change in the past. The practicing bar has been out doing work. For example, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights was organized around members of the practice bar getting behind the protection of civil rights in the Kennedy administration. So we have examples of how we have done this historically. Even to organize a whole set of institutions of lawyers around the country and nationally. We’ve done this before. So that gives me hope. And it doesn’t mean that every lawyer got behind the Lawyers’ Committee, but a lot did and continue to. So I always look for some evidence of why I should be hopeful. But I look at examples from the past. We have many lawyers in civil rights organizations, not just the Lawyers’ Committee, but it strikes me as the model not just because I’m on the Board of the local bar Lawyers’ Committee but also because it was an effort to

engage, not only civil rights organizations, but the practicing bar as a whole and the ABA was very involved with it early on. So we have some examples of when we’ve stepped up to change the way the world is operating and to put all of the skills and the tools that we learn as lawyers behind that positive change. LD: Which is what these times call for. AH: Absolutely. Absolutely. You cannot look at the numbers – whether it’s the number of women lawyers who have been facing sexual harassment, and all of that is contained in the guidebook that’s done by the ABA. But also if you look at just the way society has been impacted. If you look at not only the statistics, but also if you look at the anecdotal evidence, the quantitative and the qualitative evidence suggests that we now have a problem that rises to the level of a great social concern if not a health and safety problem in our workforce. And we should be responding with laws. I keep reminding people we’ve learned a lot in the last 30, 40 years. But there’s still some pockets that we haven’t confronted. We still have yet to understand – whether it’s in law or in society – the interactions of other identity factors, other than gender, on how people experience harassment and how they are responded to by society. There’s a study that has not to do with lawyers, but women of color astronomers and harassment of women of color astronomers and discrimination in general. But what they found was that women of color astronomers were more likely to experience sexual harassment than white women astronomers. And they were more likely to experience racial harassment than men of color astronomers. Now that’s a small study, but I think it’s worth looking into and we just don’t have the evidence. Plus, the law is not necessarily geared to try to ﬁgure out, what do we do about people who are being discriminated against on multiple factors? And so we’ve got a ways to go and more to learn and to me, that’s not a reason to quit. It’s a reason for us to double our efforts. LD: I wholeheartedly agree. The size of the problem and its very many facets can’t stop us from working toward a solution and a better day. AH: Exactly. You can’t just throw up your hands and say, “It’s too big. There’s too many problems.” That’s not the option that we can afford to take.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

223

500 224

Doug Hamill

Jill Hartley

BURNETTE DOBSON CHATTANOOGA, TENN.

THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM MILWAUKEE

Andrea Hamm

Timothy Hawks

MILLER COHEN DETROIT

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

Mark E. Hammons

Jeremy Heisler

HAMMONS GOWENS OKLAHOMA CITY

SANFORD HEISLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

D. Michael Hancock

Matthew Helland

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

NICHOLS KASTER SAN FRANCISCO

Chad Hansen

Gregory Helmer

MAINE EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP PORTLAND, MAINE

HELMER FRIEDMAN BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

Virginia Lee Hardwick

Marisel Hernandez

HARDWICK BENFER DOYLESTOWN, PA.

JACOBS BURNS CHICAGO

Donna Harper

Anita Hill

SEDEY HARPER ST. LOUIS

COHEN MILSTEIN WALTHAM, MASS.

Margaret Harris

Janet Hill

BUTLER HARRIS HOUSTON

HILL & ASSOCIATES ATHENS, GA.

Genie Harrison

Kent Hirozawa

GENIE HARRISON LAW FIRM LOS ANGELES

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Laura Ho

Amber Hurst

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

HAMMONS GOWENS OKLAHOMA CITY

Allan Holmes

Daniel Hutchinson

GIBBS & HOLMES CHARLESTON, S.C.

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Sarah Riley Howard

Lauren Simon Irwin

PINSKY SMITH GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

UPTON & HATFIELD CONCORD, N.H.

Evan Hudson-Plush

Rickey Ivie

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

IVIE MCNEILL LOS ANGELES

Susan Huhta

Pamela Jeffrey

OUTTEN & GOLDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

Scott Hunt

William Jhaveri-Weeks

BUSSE & HUNT PORTLAND, ORE.

JHAVERI-WEEKS LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Elizabeth Hunter

Lori Jodoin

FRUMKIN & HUNTER WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

POWERS JODOIN BOSTON

Kristen Hurley

Larry Johnson

GORDON LAW GROUP BOSTON

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

Douglas Huron

Robert G. Johnson

HELLER HURON WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEDEY HARPER ST. LOUIS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

225

500 226

Colleen Ramage Johnston

Joseph Kaplan

JOHNSTON LYKOS PITTSBURGH

PASSMAN & KAPLAN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jocelyn Jones

Steven J. Kaplan

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

STEVEN J. KAPLAN LOS ANGELES

Lisa Joslin

Allan Karlin

GLEASON DUNN ALBANY, N.Y.

ALLAN KARLIN & ASSOCIATES MORGANTOWN, W. VA.

Alan Kabat

Sander Karp

BERNABEI & KABAT WASHINGTON, D.C.

KARP NEU GREENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO.

James Kan

James Kaster

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

Harry J. Kane Jr.

Debra Katz

GREENBLATT PIERCE PHILADELPHI

KATZ MARSHALL & BANKS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Kane

James Katz

CASHDAN & KANE WESTFIELD, N.J.

SPEAR WILDERMAN CHERRY HILL, N.J.

Walter Kane

Paul Kelly

CARY KANE NEW YORK

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

Gail Oxfeld Kanef

Katherine Smith Kennedy

OXFELD COHEN NEWARK, N.J.

PINSKY SMITH GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Wesley Kennedy

Michael Kramer

ALLISON SLUTSKY CHICAGO

BUCKLEY BEAL ATLANTA

Diane King

Robert Kraus

KING & GREISEN DENVER

KRAUS & ZUCHLEWSKI NEW YORK

Paul Kiyonaga

Kathy Krieger

KIYONAGA & SOLTIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

JAMES & HOFFMAN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Adam Klein

Shelley Kroll

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

Paul Kleinbaum

Scott Kronland

ZAZZALI FAGELLA NEWARK, N.J.

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Regina Kline

Nathaniel Lambright

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

BLITMAN & KING SYRACUSE, N.Y.

Steven Kluender

Jocelyn Larkin

THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM MILWAUKEE

THE IMPACT FUND BERKELEY, CALIF.

Kalpana Kotagal

Nancy G. B. Lassen

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

WILLIG WILLIAMS PHILADELPHIA

Marvin Krakow

James LaVaute

ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LOS ANGELES

BLITMAN & KING SYRACUSE, N.Y.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

227

she started busing tables at a restaurant. She earned her bachelor’s degree at Hofstra University and her law degree, magna cum laude, from Quinnipiac University School of Law. Lawdragon: So tell me how you came to join Outten & Golden. What drew you into plaintiffs’ employment work? Tammy Marzigliano: I joined the ﬁrm in 2004 – 16 years ago. I have always favored the underdog and see employees in a weaker position of power than their employers. I dedicated my professional career to helping employees balance the scales of justice. LD: Not long after you graduated from law school in 2001. What did you do between graduation and joining Outten?

Tammy Marzigliano OUTTEN & GOLDEN (NEW YORK)

TAMMY MARZIGLIANO BY JAMES LANGFORD

TM: My entire career has been on the plaintiff side practicing employment law. Right out of law school, I worked for Gary Phelan at Klebanoff & Phelan in Connecticut. That firm no longer exists. However, when Gary Phelan decided to join Outten & Golden LLP, he called me up and I interviewed at the firm. I joined Outten & Golden around the same time as Gary – 2004 – and have been here ever since. When I joined, it was a very different firm than it is now…mostly because we were very small. Our summer outings used to be in one of the partner’s backyard. We all used to drive up to this beautiful house in Connecticut, and we would have a pool party, and we’d all just hang out and chat. Now, you get one of those emails where the person’s picture pops up, and you’re like, “Who is that person?”

CLIENTS WHO SEEK TAMMY MARZIGLIANO’S

help are never treated as abstract legal matters – situations that can be addressed on the justice system’s own good time.

You lose the intimacy, but there’s an upside: You meet and work with amazing and brilliant lawyers throughout the country. I have and continue to learn from my partners.

What makes the Outten & Golden partner such a standout is that she shares her clients’ urgency. If a client calls her on a Sunday, she calls back the same day.

LD: Can you talk a little about your practice, what you like about it, and what the platform of Outten has brought to your practice?

“When you’re dealing with individual employees, this is their life,” she explains of her practice representing individuals whose employment is threatened. “If you’re talking about a whistleblower who spoke up and is now on a performance-improvement plan or being terminated, someone who has four kids and a mortgage, what are they going to do? This is the end of the world for them. You’re dealing with real people with real problems, and there’s a responsibility that comes with that.”

TM: I work on the individual side of the ﬁrm. Although we all practice employment law, that’s the big umbrella, as there are many areas of law within the employment context. Most of us on the individual-side handle traditional employment matters, such as discrimination cases, sexual harassment cases, and contract disputes. I co-chair the ﬁrm’s Whistleblower and Retaliation Practice Group with Wayne Outten and also co-chair our Financial Services Practice Group with Laurence Moy.

The child of working-class parents from Long Island, N.Y., Marzigliano has held a job since age 15, when

What I’m known for here is the Whistleblower practice, which we developed years ago, but really took off

228

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

500

WE HELP PEOPLE FIND THEIR VOICE, NAVIGATE THE MORASS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT SITUATION, AND SEEK JUSTICE FOR THE WRONGDOING. I THINK WHAT WE’RE DOING MAKES A REAL DIFFERENCE. in 2010 when Dodd-Frank passed. Prior to that, we handled retaliation cases under Title VII and other federal, state, and city laws. We also handled retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; but prior to the passage of Dodd-Frank, SOX didn’t have the teeth it now has. As we know, in the wake of the 2008 ﬁnancial crisis, there was a strong sentiment that more robust protection was needed to encourage others to speak out against wrongdoing. The passage of Dodd-Frank and the strengthening of other whistleblower protections has opened the door for people to speak out.

anxious, scared, and infuriated about the injustice being perpetrated. There’s simply no “downtime” in my practice.

LD: Right. Which is probably why a lot of the abuse ﬂourished.

Everyone who works with me understands…the associates, the paralegals, and my secretary…that these are people in a crisis. Some of them don’t know where to go or what to do. Their job is in jeopardy, but they are still committed to doing “the right thing.” They want to say something, but they’re too afraid sometimes. There are so many different variables. I’ve had several clients during my career who have wound up in a mental hospital or have sought mental health treatment because of the situation they found themselves in. Think about how much time we spend at work – often 10 hours a day. It becomes our life. It defines us. It is where our friends are. It is a big part of our lives. Then, you find yourself in a situation where your company is committing fraud, or worse, asking you to participate in conduct that you believe is illegal. What do you do? You are overwhelmed with emotions and often people grapple with their own morals and values, as they weigh them against their responsibilities to their family and their ability to put food on the table if they lose their job because they spoke out. It is a difficult position to be in. We help people find their voice, navigate the morass of their employment situation, and seek justice for the wrongdoing. I think what we’re doing makes a real difference.

TM: Exactly. That’s how we got to where we were. And my clients are very important to me. A big part of my job, obviously, is practicing law, but there’s a real psychological component to this. You’re dealing with people in real time. There’s a responsibility that comes with that, and that’s something that sometimes differentiates the individual side of our ﬁrm from the class-action side, because the way we work is very different. I’m “on” all the time. We are talking about people’s livelihoods. Many people have never dealt with lawyers before and have no idea how to handle the situation that they are in. Often, my clients are

One other point that I think makes us unique – and this comes from Wayne Outten, founder of our ﬁrm – is that when people come in, initially, for a consultation, the question is not, “Do you have a case?” That’s the ﬁrst thing that people always want to know, “Do I have a case?” Our question is, “Do you have

LD: It’s such an important area of the law. TM: It really is. We’re talking about publicly traded companies, in some instances, that are committing fraud against shareholders…let’s just be honest. Then you’ve got these brave men and women who raise their hands and say, “this isn’t OK.” We now have more laws to protect them. I think it’s so important to get that message out there to people. I spend a lot of time writing and speaking on these issues because they are so important. Many of these safeguards weren’t available to employees until fairly recently, which allowed many scandals to go unchecked. We still have a way to go as far as the law is concerned, but we have made progress.

I keep a book in my ofﬁce ﬁlled with notes, letters, and emails from clients that say things like, “You’ve changed my life,” “thank you – I couldn’t have gone through this without you.” Whenever I have a bad day, I pull those out… and I’m like, “OK, this is why I do what I do.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

229

500 230

Robert Lavitt

Danielle Leonard

BARNARD IGLITZIN SEATTLE

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Barbara Lawless

Carl Levine

LAWLESS & LAWLESS SAN FRANCISCO

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

Therese Lawless

Roberta Levinson

LAWLESS & LAWLESS SAN FRANCISCO

ABRAHAMSON VORACHEK CHICAGO

Wendi Lazar

Andy Levy

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Dolores Leal

Richard Levy

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

Andrew Lee

Jeffrey Lewis

GOLDSTEIN BORGEN OAKLAND, CALIF.

KELLER ROHRBACK OAKLAND

David Lee

Stacey Leyton

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. LEE CHICAGO

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Michelle G. Lee

Brooke Lierman

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Jane Legler

David Linesch

NEILL & LEGLER DALLAS

THE LINESCH FIRM PALM HARBOR, FLA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

a problem? Do you have a problem that you need assistance to navigate?” LD: Tell me a bit about that part of the practice, which many of your clients particularly appreciate because they don’t necessarily want to go to court. They just want to protect their rights. TM: Often, at least on the individual side, we never appear on behalf of the client. We never show our faces, but we help people with problem-solving. Maybe they don’t even have a legal claim, but they have a problem. There might not be a law to protect them, but there’s a way that we can help them navigate through the minefield of their employment situation. We do a lot of that. I think it really sets us apart. A lot of firms proceed in a very traditional way and ask that threshold question: Is there a legal claim here? They take all the facts and every conceivable claim and throw it against the wall and proceed with whatever sticks. They litigate everything and let the chips fall as they may. We don’t do that. We are very methodological with our problem-solving, our approach. We sit down and analyze the information provided by our client and find out what their actual goals are. We are honest and transparent about their claims – or lack thereof. In some instances, we will say, “Listen, you may not have any legal claims, but you have a problem and you have leverage. You’ve been there 30 years, you have these relationships, let’s talk through that. Let’s talk about how you can find your way through this minefield.” People really appreciate that. They walk away from a consultation understanding their rights, their leverage, and they have a plan of action to execute on. It’s a big part of what we do, but it’s not obvious. Every case is unique, and we look at each case through the lens of that person. Everybody’s needs are different. One person might say, “I want to leave my company.” One person might say, “I want to stay.” One person might say, “I just want to change my termination to a resignation.” Therefore, every case is handled differently, because each person’s needs, wants, and interests are totally different. LD: What was your background growing up? You have so much passion for employees. Was there something that inspired that? TM: I grew up in Long Island. My dad is a plumber; he’s self-employed. My mom didn’t work until we were in high school, and then she worked as an office manager.

A lot of my passion, I think, comes from my father. Although he was not an “educated man,” my father is one of the smartest people I know. Any time I would give a presentation at school, he would work with me. He would encourage me to dig deep within myself to find my voice. I realized at an early stage in life that I needed to believe in what I was doing, and my passion and advocacy followed. My compassion and empathy come from my mom. Growing up was interesting. Since I was a little kid, if we got in trouble for anything, we were given an opportunity to “plead our case.” You would sit at the dining room table and my mom would be there; my dad would sit at the head of the table and allow us to explain our case. He would hear us out. Then, after we made all of our arguments, he would confer with my mom, and give us a punishment. Sometimes mitigating factors were considered. As I got older (I was the oldest of three girls), I got to represent my sisters. One of my best cases was one with my little sister that I actually won. I got her “off” with no punishment – it was the best feeling. LD: That’s such an awesome slice-of-life story. TM: I think my advocacy started at a very young age. I worked at a restaurant starting at age 15. I started busing tables, then waitressing, then managing the restaurant. I learned so much from that experience. Being the manager in your 20s is hard; you don’t even know who you are yourself. But the owner, who I am still close with all these years later, really taught me about people and about management. A lot of times, it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it. I see that play out in my world when clients come to me. Some people seek out an attorney – not because they think they have legal claims, and sometimes they don’t - but because they are so angry about how they were treated. Instead of the employer being honest and saying, “Listen, this isn’t a good fit,” instead, the employer will build a “case” against the employee and start attacking their performance or micro-managing everything they do to “justify” terminating their employment. Such justification is unnecessary. Let’s be honest; let’s be transparent. That’s how I managed the restaurant. At a very young age, I learned A, you always treat people the way you want to be treated, and B, you never ask anyone to do anything that you’re not willing to do yourself. Even now, if I have a late filing, I’m here. People are like, “Why are you still here?” Because my team’s here, I’m here.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

231

500 232

Judith Lonnquist

Louis Pierre Malone

JUDITH A. LONNQUIST SEATTLE

O’DONOGHUE & O’DONOGHUE WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Lopez

Chaya Mandelbaum

OUTTEN & GOLDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

Gail Lopez

Robert Mantell

HENRIQUEZ FREEDMAN & LORRY PHILADELPHIA

POWERS JODOIN BOSTON

David A. Lowe

Deborah Marcuse

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

SANFORD HEISLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Paul Lukas

Beth Margolis

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

Nikki Velisaris Lykos

Michael Maroko

JOHNSTON LYKOS PITTSBURGH

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

Brian MacDonough

David Marshall

SHERIN & LODGEN BOSTON

KATZ MARSHALL & BANKS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Barry Macey

Dana Martinez

MACEY SWANSON INDIANAPOLIS

BUSH GOTTLIEB GLENDALE, CALIF.

Richard G. Mack Jr.

Francis Martorana

MILLER COHEN DETROIT

O’DONOGHUE & O’DONOGHUE WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Tammy Marzigliano

Gene Mechanic

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

MECHANIC LAW PORTLAND, ORE.

William Massey

Walter “Terry” Meginness

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

Laura Carlin Mattiacci

Paul Merry

CONSOLE MATTIACCI PHILADELPHIA

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL H. MERRY NEWTON, MASS.

Cary McGehee

Ellen J. Messing

PITT MCGEHEE ROYAL OAK, MICH.

MESSING RUDAVSKY NEWTON, MASS.

Gregory McGillivary

Gary Messing

MCGILLIVARY STEELE WASHINGTON, D.C.

MESSING ADAM SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Joseph McKenna Jr.

Thomas Mew

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

BUCKLEY BEAL ATLANTA

H. Vincent McKnight Jr.

Ronald Meyer

SANFORD HEISLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

MEYER BROOKS TALLAHASSEE

Todd McNamara

Ossai Miazad

MCNAMARA & SHECHTER DENVER

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Don Meade

Donna Mikel

PRIDDY CUTLER LOUISVILLE, KY.

BURNETTE DOBSON CHATTANOOGA, TENN.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

233

500 234

Bruce A. Miller

Wendy Musell

MILLER COHEN DETROIT

STEWART & MUSELL EMERYVILLE, CALIF.

Dale Minami

Christine Neill

MINAMI TAMAKI SAN FRANCISCO

NEILL LEGLER DALLAS

Stephen Moldof

Donald Nichols

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

John Mooney

Andrew Nickelhoff

MOONEY GREEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SACHS WALDMAN DETROIT

Geoffrey Mort

William O’Brien

KRAUS & ZUCHLEWSKI NEW YORK

MILLER O’BRIEN MINNEAPOLIS

Laurence Moy

Michael Okun

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

PATTERSON HARKAVY CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

John Mullan

Katelyn Oldham

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

TEDESCO LAW GROUP PORTLAND, ORE.

Neil Mullin

Donald Oliver

SMITH MULLIN MONTCLAIR, N.J.

BLITMAN & KING SYRACUSE, N.Y.

Matthew Murray

Jeff S. Olson

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

THE JEFF SCOTT OLSON LAW FIRM MADISON, WIS.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

R. Scott Oswald

Hank Patterson

THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP WASHINGTON, D.C.

PATTERSON HARKAVY CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

Wayne Outten

Robert Paul

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

ZWERDLING PAUL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sanford Oxfeld

Jane Peak

OXFELD COHEN NEWARK, N.J.

ALLAN KARLIN & ASSOCIATES MORGANTOWN, W. VA.

Cliff Palefsky

Lawrence Pearson

MCGUINN HILLSMAN SAN FRANCISCO

WIGDOR NEW YORK

Joseph Paller Jr.

Lorrie Peeters

GILBERT & SACKMAN LOS ANGELES

CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES CHICAGO

Robert Palmer

Kathleen Peratis

PITT MCGEHEE ROYAL OAK, MICH.

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Cindy Pรกnuco

Frederick Perillo

PUBLIC COUNSEL LOS ANGELES

THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM MILWAUKEE

Joseph Pass

Sean Phelan

JUBELIRER PASS PITTSBURGH

FRANK FREED SEATTLE

Edward Passman

Patricia Pierce

PASSMAN & KAPLAN WASHINGTON, D.C.

GREENBLATT PIERCE PHILADELPHIA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

235

David Wachtel TRISTER ROSS (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

500

DAVID WACHTEL

BY ALISON PREECE

DAVE WACHTEL REALIZED EARLY IN HIS

I joined Rose & Rose, a public interest litigation ﬁrm. David Rose was the founding partner. He had been the ﬁrst Section Chief for Employment in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Right after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Attorney General assigned Mr. Rose to enforce Title VII, this new law against employment discrimination. About 25 years later, I started learning to litigate Title VII cases from Mr. Rose.

He and his ﬁrm go head-to-head with lawyers for federal agencies and major companies. An engaged problem-solver, he seeks to uncover every last fact in a case that might help right wrongs done to his clients. Wachtel is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law and a partner at Trister, Ross, Schadler & Gold in Washington, D.C.

LD: What kinds of matters does your ﬁrm handle for employees now?

career that he wanted to develop a practice aligned with his beliefs: supporting individuals and important causes, and providing good value to clients. He has since built a prominent employment practice, representing employees who have been harassed or wrongfully dismissed and advising progressive nonproﬁt organizations on employment law and employment policy.

Lawdragon: Can you describe your career path? Dave Wachtel: Like almost every other high school student in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, I worked in restaurants. That continued into college a little bit. Towards the end of college, I found what might have been my first responsibility greater than bringing a customer a timely salad. I spent most of a year as a field organizer for a presidential campaign. Now, when I’m not representing individual employees, I advise campaign organizations, so that part of my work has come full circle. I worked my way through law school at the University of Texas. Since then, I’ve been in private practice. Before I joined Trister Ross, I spent 12 years at Rose & Rose and 10 years at Bernabei & Wachtel, both firms that practiced employment law, almost always representing employees. LD: How did you choose the University of Texas for law school? DW: I was living through another cold winter in Chicago. It was a lot warmer in Austin, Texas. UT also was then, as it is now, the best value in American legal education. It had a national reputation and an outstanding faculty. LD: How did you first become interested in employment law? DW: I was hired by an international firm before I finished law school. But after a few years doing corporate and environmental work, I knew I was going to be more driven to work for people than for corporations.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

DW: I can divide most of the individual employment law matters we handle into four categories. In chronological order: First, we negotiate employment agreements. Most employees do not have individual agreements, but when they do, the agreements are almost always written by the employer’s lawyer. Making these agreements as fair and clear as possible requires strong drafting skills, problem solving, and knowledge of the laws governing non-compete and non-solicit agreements. Second, we advise clients with ongoing problems at work, like harassment, lack of accommodation for disability, or an internal investigation. Third, we represent people who have just lost their jobs, usually negotiating more favorable severance agreements. Often, these negotiations involve impressing on the employer that our client’s legal rights have been violated. Most of these discussions are confidential, partly for the protection of our client’s professional reputation. We’ve also handled higher profile matters involving workers terminated for preventing threats to public safety or reporting financial misconduct. Fourth, when situations cannot be resolved at work or shortly after a client is terminated, we litigate for individuals in front of government agencies and courts. LD: What pro bono activities are you involved in? DW: Among other things, I’ve participated in the U.S. District Court mediation program, first as volunteer appointed counsel and lately as a volunteer mediator. LD: What do you find satisfying about representing employees? DW: Helping people. Getting to know the people I’m helping. Negotiating and other kinds of problem

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

237

500 238

Frank Pinchak

Anna Prakash

BURNETTE DOBSON CHATTANOOGA, TENN.

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

Sheldon Pincus

Erin Pulaski

LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON PINCUS MONTCLAIR, N.J.

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

H. Rhett Pinsky

Daniel Purtell

PINSKY SMITH GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

Joshua Piovia-Scott

Jonathan Puth

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OAKLAND, CALIF.

CORREIA & PUTH WASHINGTON, D.C.

Nina Pirrotti

Barbara Zack Quindel

GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN NEW HAVEN, CONN.

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

Michael Pitt

Daniel Ratner

PITT MCGEHEE ROYAL OAK, MICH.

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

Peggy Goldberg Pitt

Carolina Rdzanek

PITT MCGEHEE ROYAL OAK, MICH.

ABRAHAMSON VORACHEK CHICAGO

P. Casey Pitts

Charlotte Redo

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

SCHWARTZ ROLLINS ATLANTA

Kevin Powers

James Reif

POWERS JODOIN BOSTON

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I WAS HIRED BY AN INTERNATIONAL FIRM BEFORE I FINISHED LAW SCHOOL. BUT AFTER A FEW YEARS DOING CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, I KNEW I WAS GOING TO BE MORE DRIVEN TO WORK FOR PEOPLE THAN FOR CORPORATIONS. solving. New clients and new problems coming in all the time. Constantly re-engineering and strategizing to provide clients with as much value as possible. LD: Is there a matter in your career that stands out as particularly memorable? DW: One of the most memorable started at Rose & Rose sometime in the year 2000. I got a cold call from a potential client. He had been denied a civilian job with the United States Department of the Navy because of his medical history, which years earlier had led to his discharge from the uniformed military. He had found medication that was controlling his illness. As a contractor’s employee, he had safely performed the same work he wanted to do as a regular Navy employee. The Navy offered him a job but then revoked the offer when they found out he had been diagnosed with this illness. They did not pay attention to the way he was managing his illness and the evidence that he could do the job. After an initial loss and an appeal, in 2006, the Ofﬁce of Federal Operations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed with us. Without going to trial, my client was awarded six years of back pay plus damages. LD: What makes that case memorable? DW: The odds. The client did not have resources. He could not ﬁnd a lawyer to take his case in his home state. The resounding way he won. Winning at EEOC and winning for an employee without going to trial are both rare. We did both in the same case. LD: Could you describe for our readers some of your other major career successes? DW: From 1995 to 2001, at Rose & Rose, I worked closely with Dave Rose representing more than a dozen mid-level managers over the age of 40 who had lost their jobs in mass layoffs by subsidiaries of Ameritech Corporation. In Adams et al. v. Ameritech

Corporation, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the employees could prove age discrimination by pointing to signifi cant disparities between the termination rates of older and younger employees. LD: Have you handled other age discrimination cases? DW: About 12 years later, I had a different kind of memorable case. It started just before a hurricane. I filed the complaint early because we were about to lose power. Our client was a nuclear engineer who had been passed over for promotion at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) in favor of a younger candidate who was not a nuclear engineer. Initially, the federal government opposed our effort to have a trial in federal court, because our client had represented himself, unsuccessfully, in a hearing at the EEOC. We defeated that government motion, basically persuading the court our client deserved to try his case again with an attorney. Then in discovery, we learned that the NRC had a “succession plan” in which retirement-eligible employees, like our client, were not considered part of their units’ “depth” or future plans. In February 2015, after trial in front of a judge, we obtained full relief for our client, including promotion. LD: You also recently handled an interesting case for an ATF employee. Can you tell us about that? DW: We represented a female agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF. Despite being an outstanding agent who had served the country at the sites of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Newtown shooting, and the Boston Marathon bombing, two of my client’s supervisors subjected her to a stream of abuse, mocking her based on her gender. We worked on the case for three or four years. At the start, the main remedy ATF offered for the harassment was to transfer my client, which probably would have hurt her career. Near the end, the central adjudicative office of the Department of

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

239

500 240

Randy Renick

Thomas Riley

HADSELL STORMER PASADENA, CALIF.

TOBIN CARBERRY NEW LONDON, CONN.

Richard Resnick

David Ring

SHERMAN DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

TAYLOR RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

N. Elizabeth Reynolds

Mark Risk

ALLISON SLUTSKY CHICAGO

MARK RISK NEW YORK

Stephanie Reynolds

Susan Ritz

BERGER WILLIAMS SAN DIEGO

RITZ CLARK & BEN-ASHER NEW YORK

Janet Rhodes

Beth Rivers

BURNETTE SHUTT COLUMBIA, S.C.

PITT MCGEHEE ROYAL OAK, MICH.

Gregory Rich

Jennier Robbins

DOBSON GOLDBERG ST. LOUIS

BARNARD IGLITZIN SEATTLE

Julia Richard-Spencer

Matthew Robbins

ROBEIN URANN NEW ORLEANS

THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM MILWAUKEE

Nancy Richards-Stower

Louis Robein Jr.

LAW OFFIC ES OF NANCY RICHARDS-STOWER MERRIMACK, N.H.

ROBEIN URANN NEW ORLEANS

Lori Rifkin

Elizabeth Rodgers

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIF.

GORDON LAW GROUP BOSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I DON’T COME OFF AS THE NASTIEST GUY ON THE BLOCK, AND THAT’S A GOOD THING. ON THE OTHER HAND, I’VE BEEN SUING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LARGE ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHER DIFFICULT DEFENDANTS FOR ALMOST MY WHOLE CAREER. Justice issued a 43-page decision, and we prevailed on every claim made. LD: What were some challenges inherent in this case? DW: We represented an active law enforcement officer so we had to walk a line, being as professional as possible while showing that we would not be backing down. LD: Do you think the result had a larger impact in the agency? DW: My client thought so at the time. She said we sent a message to other women in federal law enforcement that, if they fight for their rights, they can be vindicated. It’s obviously still a struggle. LD: Over your career, what lessons have you learned? How have you evolved as a litigator? DW: Most cases settle. It took me a while to realize that the key to negotiating settlements is to be myself. I don’t come off as the nastiest guy on the block, and that’s a good thing. On the other hand, I’ve been suing the federal government, large organizations, and other difficult defendants for almost my whole career. I think some potential clients try to find their lawyers by googling “lawyer pit bull.” I tell these clients I can do a lot more than a pit bull. I’m calm, strategic, and analytical. I’m more disciplined and detail-oriented than a pit bull. More diplomatic. But when the circumstances really call for it, I bite someone. LD: A few years ago, you joined Trister Ross, which is not a typical employment law firm. Tell us about that decision. DW: Most of the lawyers here represent progressive nonprofit organizations. Their clients needed advice on employment law compliance and resolving occasional disputes. Trister Ross was an unusual opportunity because most employment lawyers represent either employ-

ees or management. Because Trister Ross has a civil rights history, I can do both here. I spend about two thirds of my time now on individual plaintiff cases and the other third advising organizations. That gives me a lot of insight into how employers see employment law problems. Recently, that insight has been magnified by volunteer mediation I’m doing for the federal court. LD: Can you describe your practice model? DW: Trister Ross partners have freedom to shape their practices. So my models for this practice aren’t just lawyers and law firms. I had spent enough time thinking about lawyers and law firms. I refocused on friends in other kinds of businesses who care about their crafts and give value to their customers. One business model comes from an organic farm. The farmer used to be a chef, became an organic farmer, wrote his own cookbook and digs his vegetables out of the ground. He spends every Saturday talking to his customers and he still gets his hands dirty. Another friend of mine who was a carpenter told me “as soon as you get more than three people on a job, you’re just a jerk with a clipboard.” So what I do here is put their life lessons into my law practice. I believe we can deliver the best value for our employment law clients by staying grounded and keeping the caseload at a size where I can apply my experience and creativity to add value at every phase of the legal work. LD: Do you do anything for fun when you’re outside the office? DW: I like to cook and listen to music. I run a lot. I’ve run 25 marathons and some 50-kilometer trail races. I guess you could call that fun.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

241

500 242

Elizabeth Roma

John R. Runyan Jr.

GUERRIERI BARTOS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SACHS WALDMAN DETROIT

Peter Romer-Friedman

William “Billy” Ryan

GUPTA WESSLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

DONATI LAW MEMPHIS

Barry Roseman

Jahan Sagafi

BARRY D. ROSEMAN DENVER

OUTTEN & GOLDEN SAN FRANCISCO

Sanford Jay Rosen

Susan M. Saint-Antoine

ROSEN BIEN SAN FRANCISCO

CONSOLE MATTIACCI PHILADELPHIA

James Rosenberg

Richard Saks

ABATO RUBENSTEIN BALTIMORE

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

Beth A. Ross

Richard Salzman

LEONARD CARDER SAN FRANCISCO

HELLER HURON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Rubin

David Sanford

ALTSHULER BERZON SAN FRANCISCO

SANFORD HEISLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dahlia Rudavsky

Jim Sanford

MESSING RUDAVSKY NEWTON, MASS.

GILLESPIE & SANFORD DALLAS

Peter Rukin

Cynthia Sass

RUKIN HYLAND SAN FRANCISCO

SASS LAW FIRM TAMPA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Lawrence Schaefer

Mary Ann Sedey

SCHAEFER HALLEEN MINNEAPOLIS

SEDEY HARPER ST. LOUIS

Bradley Schleier

Joseph Sellers

SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES PHOENIX

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Tod Schleier

Derek Sells

SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES PHOENIX

THE COCHRAN FIRM NEW YORK

Laura Schnell

Richard Seymour

EISENBERG & SCHNELL NEW YORK

LAW OFFICES OF RICK SEYMOUR WASHINGTON, D.C.

Alan Schorr

Heidi Sharp

SCHORR & ASSOCIATES CHERRY HILL, N.J.

BURGESS SHARP CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICH.

Daniel Schoshinski

Ann Shaver

HAWKS QUINDEL MILWAUKEE

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Howard Schragin

Kathryn Shea

SAPIR SCHRAGIN WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

Aniko Schwarcz

Matt Shechter

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

MCNAMARA & SHECHTER DENVER

Keith Secular

Carney Shegerian

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES SANTA MONICA, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

243

500 244

Nancy Shilepsky

Jay Smith

SHERIN & LODGEN BOSTON

GILBERT & SACKMAN LOS ANGELES

Amy Shulman

Joel Smith

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

KAHN SMITH BALTIMORE

Nekki Shutt

Jules Smith

BURNETTE SHUTT COLUMBIA, S.C.

BLITMAN & KING SYRACUSE, N.Y.

Donald Siegel

Nancy Smith

SEGAL ROITMAN BOSTON

SMITH MULLIN MONTCLAIR, N.J.

Jill Silverstein

Steven Andrew Smith

SOWERS WOLF ST. LOUIS

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

Bruce Simon

Debra Soltis

COHEN WEISS NEW YORK

KIYONAGA & SOLTIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stephen A. Simon

Margery Somers

TOBIAS TORCHIA CINCINNATI

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

Michael Slutsky

D. Eric Sowers

ALLISON SLUTSKY CHICAGO

SOWERS WOLF ST. LOUIS

J. Arthur Smith

Samuel Spear

SMITH LAW FIRM BATON ROUGE, LA.

SPEAR WILDERMAN PHILADELPHIA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Marcus Spiegel

Robert Sugarman

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Ryan Spillers

George Suggs

GILBERT & SACKMAN LOS ANGELES

SCHUCHAT COOK ST. LOUIS

Racchana Srey

Dana Sullivan

NICHOLS KASTER MINNEAPOLIS

BUCHANAN ANGELI PORTLAND, ORE.

Douglas Steele

Geraldine Sumter

MCGILLIVARY STEELE WASHINGTON, D.C.

FERGUSON CHAMBERS CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Fern Steiner

Curt Surls

SMITH STEINER SAN DIEGO

LAW OFFICE OF CURT SURLS MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

Dan Stormer

Howard Susskind

HADSELL STORMER PASADENA, CALIF.

SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Robert Stulberg

Brian Sutherland

BROACH & STULBERG NEW YORK

BUCKLEY BEAL ATLANTA

Adam Sturdivant

Daniel Swanson

DREW COOPER GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

SOMMERS SCHWARTZ SOUTHFIELD, MICH.

Michael Subit

Richard Swanson

FRANK FREED SEATTLE

MACEY SWANSON INDIANAPOLIS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

245

500 246

Justin Swartz

Vincent Tong

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

TONG LAW OAKLAND, CALIF.

Sean Tamura-Sato

David Torchia

MINAMI TAMAKI SAN FRANCISCO

TOBIAS TORCHIA CINCINNATI

James Roddy Tanner

Laurie Traktman

TANNER & ASSOCIATES FORT WORTH, TEXAS

GILBERT & SACKMAN LOS ANGELES

John C. Taylor

Robert Truhlar

TAYLOR RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

TRUHLAR & TRUHLAR CENTENNIAL, COLO.

Michael Tedesco

Amelia Tuminaro

TEDESCO LAW GROUP PORTLAND, ORE.

GLADSTEIN REIF NEW YORK

Marilyn Teitelbaum

Julie Uebler

SCHUCHAT COOK ST. LOUIS

GREENBLATT PIERCE PHILADELPHIA

Joyce Thomas

Darlene Vorachek

FRANK FREED SEATTLE

ABRAHAMSON VORACHEK CHICAGO

Peter Thompson

Sherrie Voyles

MAINE EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP PORTLAND, MAINE

JACOBS BURNS CHICAGO

Peder Thoreen

David Wachtel

SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO

TRISTER ROSS WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Kenneth Wagner

John West

BLITMAN & KING SYRACUSE, N.Y.

ALLRED MAROKO LOS ANGELES

Keith Waldman

Benjamin Westhoff

SELIKOFF & COHEN MT. LAUREL, N.J.

SEDEY HARPER ST. LOUIS

Mark Walsh

Christopher Whelan

GLEASON DUNN ALBANY, N.Y.

CHRISTOPHER WHELAN GOLD RIVER, CALIF.

Christine Webber

Peter Whelan

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERNABEI & KABAT WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Webbert

Douglas Wigdor

JOHNSON WEBBERT PORTLAND, MAINE

WIGDOR NEW YORK

Jessie Weber

Gregory Wiggins

BROWN GOLDSTEIN BALTIMORE

WIGGINS CHILDS BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Jillian Weiss

Gwynne Wilcox

WEISS LAW NEW YORK

LEVY RATNER NEW YORK

James Weliky

Alaine Williams

MESSING RUDAVSKY NEWTON, MASS.

WILLIG WILLIAMS PHILADELPHIA

Vincent A. Wenners Jr.

James Williams

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WENNERS MANCHESTER, N.H.

CHEHARDY SHERMAN METAIRIE, LA.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

247

500 248

Timothy Williams

Jeffrey Neil Young

BERGER WILLIAMS SAN DIEGO

JOHNSON WEBBERT PORTLAND, MAINE

Deborah Willig

Jay Youngdahl

WILLIG WILLIAMS PHILADELPHIA

THE YOUNGDAHL LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Robert Willis

Sara Youngdahl

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

THE YOUNGDAHL LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Ferne Wolf

Steven Zieff

SOWERS WOLF ST. LOUIS

RUDY EXELROD SAN FRANCISCO

Michael Wolly

Keith Zimmerman

ZWERDLING PAUL WASHINGTON, D.C.

KAHN SMITH BALTIMORE

Stephen Yokich

Pearl Zuchlewski

DOWD BLOCH CHICAGO

KRAUS & ZUCHLEWSKI NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 21 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Advocates for Workplace Fairness

Rachel Bien

Adam T. Klein

Katherine Blostein

Wendi S. Lazar

Wayne N. Outten

Molly A. Brooks

David Lopez

Kathleen Peratis

Cara E. Greene

Tammy Marzigliano

Jahan C. Sagafi

Ossai Miazad

Amy F. Shulman

Susan E. Huhta

Laurence S. Moy

Justin M. Swartz

Outten & Golden is honored to be so well represented among our esteemed colleagues on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers list. Our Practice Groups • Executives & Professionals • Financial Services • Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination

• Family Responsibilities & Disabilities Discrimination

• Discrimination & Retaliation

• Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & Queer Workplace Rights

• Class & Collective Actions

• Whistleblower Retaliation

• WARN Act

New York • Chicago • San Francisco • Washington, DC